£ibv;u (!' annvc'..',. 

'Mn,|,. FojZ O 

ttjf V\ 3 



UNITED "'A. 



A DEFENCE, ILLUSTRATIVE 



OF 



JUDGE SCOTT'S CHARACTER: 



AND CONTAINING A REFUTATION OF CERTAIN CHARGES MADE AGAINST 



A. J. MARSHALL, 



BY THE 



HOIST. JUDGE SCOTtf , AND ROBERT E. SCOTT, 



IN THEIR JOINT REPLY TO THE PAMPHLET OF 



MARTIN P. BROOKE, ESQ. 



/ 
ALEXANDRIA, (D. C.) 

fcjftlNTKD AT THE OFFICE OF THE " INDEX. ^ 

1842. 



CHAPTER I. 

The bitter and vengeful spirit in which I am assailed by the Hon. Judge Scott 
and his son, Robert E. Scott, in their joint reply to the pamphlet of M. P. Brooke, 
Esquire, compells me to appear before the public in defence of my own conduct, and 
character. Except in an extreme case, where great and extended mischief, which 
can be reached in no other way, has been effected, I do not think that individuals 
are justified in obtruding their private grievances upon the public. The Judicial 
tribunals of our country, in most cases, furnish a more appropriate redress, or, a 
resort to those individual remedies above and beyond the control of all law, save 
public opinion, is far more congenial to an offended and outraged spirit. But, in 
the present instance, there is no competent redress for the injury sustained, except 
in an appeal to the public, before whom I have been arraigned by my accusers. 
The courts are too tardy, and their verdicts are, at best, inadequate, whilst all 
other remedies are forbidden to me. It is known to my adversaries, that I am not, 
as other men, free to resent injury, and avenge outrage, by resort to those personal 
remedies before referred to.* The claims of my large and growing family for 
bread and education, afe paramount to all other considerations. My helpless con- 
dition, whilst it has rendered me most forbearing and cautious to invade the rights 
and outrage the feelings of others, ought to be, and is, with magnanimous spirits, 
my guard and protection against aggression. But, the impunity resulting from my 
peculiar relations to society, seems to have furnished an additional incentive to the 
outrage and violence with which 1 have been treated by both Judge Scott and 
his son. 

The low and unworthy personal abuse, and the vulgar epithets to which both 
the father and son have resorted, are examples for others to follow ; for myself, I 
look upon a resort to such weapons, in a controversy like this, as an open acknow- 
ledgment that reason and argument, and truth, would furnish to them no protec- 
tion. My true defence, and justification, is found in a simple presentation of facts, 
in a narative which will exhibit my conduct and motives, and also their conduct 
and their motives. 

The reader need not fear a mass of dull and prosy reading, in the detail which 
I mn about to give, for, however stupid the faithful history of any six months of 
my life would be, I assure him that, being connected and mixed up with Judge 
Scott's history for the same period, it will, necessarily, develop a good portion of 



I am Clerk of the County Court, and my family are in absolute dependence on thi3 office. 



that dramatic sprigbtliness which pertains to his honour's character. As the beauty 
of all history is its truth, I will premise my narrative, by stating that it was written 
and prepared for publication, whilst the facts of which it speaks were fresh in 
my memory ; that it was read by many who were witnesses of the scenes described, 
and that its statements have been approved and confirmed by the concurrent recol- 
lections of all to whom it was shown. Without further preface I will begin the 
narrative. 



CHAPTER II. 

Scene in the Court House. • 

At our last March court, in compliance with immemorial usage, the Whigs pro- 
posed to hold a meeting for the nomination of their candidates for the Legislature. 
As matter of course, Mr. Foster was to be one, as he was then in nomination from 
the upper end of the county, and the other was to be selected by the proposed 
public meeting. On Monday, of March Court, about 11 o'clock, Mr. Isham Keith 
took me aside, and told me of a purpose which he and others, neighbours of Mr # 
Brooke, had of making him the nominee of our meeting, at the same time asking 
my aid and concurrence. I replied that no man would sustain Mr. B. with greater 
pleasure than myself, if I could do it consistently with my fledges to Col. Walden . 
but that Walden, I thought, was entitled to the nomination. A few moments after 
this, 1 saw Mr. Brooke, and repeated the same to him. He replied that he felt as 
strongly pledged to Walden as I, or any man, and if Walden was present, or there 
was any reasonable hope of his return (from the south) in time to enter on the 
canvass, he would yield, and go for Walden's nomination. 

J saw Judge Scott at a little distance, and walking up to him, entered into con- 
versation about our proposed meeting. His Honor was opposed to holding any 
meeting at all, and argued with much greater earnestness than modesty, the absence 
of his son Robert, as a reason why we should take uo step on that day. He said 
that respect for our representative required us to wait till he had withdrawn, before 
we appointed his successor. I asked him if there was any prospect of Robert's 
consenting to serve. His reply was no ; but repeated that respect for him required 
of us to await his public withdrawal. Thinking to end this disputation, I drew 
from my pocket, a letter recently received by me from Robert E. Scott, and read the 
following extract: "I can not, under any circumstances, agree to become a candi- 
t k date again. Do not let my friends insist upon it, and thus place me in the unplea- 
" sant position of obstinately refusing. Cast about and select some one privately, 
u amongst yourselves, amd bring him out at March Court, Sfc. fyc." 

With this distinct authority from " our absent representative" to withdraw him, 
accompanied by a request that we should make a selection at March Court, I 
thought all difficulties of form as well as substance were removed. Far otherwise 



6 

tvith the Judge. He snuffed disrespect in our taking any steps to chose a candi- 
date in the absence of his son until he had publicly and formally withdrawn. 
He said the letter to me was a private letter, which I had no right to publish, &.c. 
He finally insisted on his first position, and gravely contended for " that aforesaid 
respect due to our absent representative," who had not publicly withdrawn. 

I claim no little credit for keeping my countenance during this discussion. Look- 
ing upon this claim to an extravagant deference for his son, as proceeding from the 
blind and doating affection of an old man, whose heart overflowed with pride and 
vanity for the distinction his son promised to attain, I smiled upon it as a venial 
and natural weakness. It appears in the sequel, that my charitable construction 
was misplaced. In a recent letter to me, of sixteen pages, his Honor discloses the 
fact that he then knew of the purpose to nominate M. Brooke for the Legislature • 
This fact furnishes the true solution of his most remarkable conduct. It was not 
the jealous fatuity of doating age, pertinaciously shielding his absent son from 
immaginary slights, but the dark and unhallowed passions of hatred and ven- 
geance towards the proposed candidate, whose nomination he feared could not be 
defeated in the absence, and without the aid of his son. This is the key to his vio- 
lent opposition to the proposed meeting. His true reason (hatred of Mr. Brooke) 
he could not give; and thus forced into a wrong position, he became the subject 
of general and undisguised amusement by his importunate demands for an exagge- 
rated respect to be paid "our absent representative," who had not publicly with- 
drawn. But here I am in advance of my narrative ; let me return. 

The Judge, I have said, still contended for that same aforesaid respect, "due to 
our absent representative who had not publicly withdrawn." I kept my counte- 
nance, and we then discussed who ought to be the nominee of the meeting if it 
should take place. He contended for Captain Edmonds — I for Col. Walden ; and 
we separated. In the meantime the nomination of Mr. Brooke became the theme 
of general discussion. His friends were very zealous and active, and it was evi- 
dent he would get the nomination. I happened to be in a circle with Mr. R. E. 
Lee a short time after I left the Judge, and playfully told him we were about to 
bring Brooke forward. He expressed the bitterest hostility, and cast gross reflec- 
tions upon it, as a disgraceful proposition. During the course of the morning, I 
ascertained that a letter which had been received from Col. Walden, and which I 
had been told gave reason to expect his return in time for the canvass, contained 
no such information ; but on the contrary, was altogether vague and uncertain on 
that point. Thus I was relieved from my pledges to Col. Walden ; which alone 
had prevented my uniting with Mr. Brooke's friends. 

If the meeting had taken place on Monday, I should have sustained Mr. Brooke. 
No meeting, or rather a very small meeting, composed of a few individuals, was 
held on Monday, and adjourned to Thursday, on motion of Mr. Chilton, who 
placed it on the Judge's ground of Robert Scott's absence. I assented to his mo- 
tion, hoping that Col. Walden would either writs or return from the South by 
Tuesday's stage ; for I had seen and heard enough to expect a most excited and 



6 

violent opposition to Mr. Brooke from the Judge ; and I was very willing to avoid 
it by any honorable means. If Walden had returned, or written, as I had hoped: he 
would have received the nomination, and thus the gathering storm of his honour's 
wrathful passions, might have been quietly dissipated. But Walden neither came 
or wrote, or did " our absent representative." 

The dreadful Thursday, "big with the fate of Cato and of Rome," was at 
hand ; and the anxious parties were all congregated in an organized meeting in our 
spacious court-house — a holy temple, consecrated to the purposes of law, and 
order, peace and justice. Mr. Chilton again moved a postponement of the meeting 
on the Judge's old ground '• of a proper respect to our absent representative !" and 
argued that no inconvenience would arise, as our adversaries had not brought out 
their candidates, and would not till we made our selection. I spoke in replv to 
Mr. Chilton, and in opposition to his motion to postpone. As preliminary to what 
I had to say, I asked him if he or any of Robert Scott's friends were authorized to 
sjate that Mr. Scott would consent to serve us if we gaVe him the nomination ? 
Chilton replied m the negative. I then called on Mr. Robert Lee, and I understood 
him to reply that he had received a recent letter, but there was nothing in it which 
would authorize him to say that Mr. Scott would consent to serve. 

" I then proceeded with my argument against the postponement. I adverted to 
" the necessity of then nominating a candidate, as the election was at hand, (only 
" four weeks off) and no occasion would again bring the people together before 
a thai time. 1 adverted to the necessity of making the nomination, to put an end 
" to the excitement which manifestly threatened a dissolution of our party, if not 
" the peace of society. This was a larger meeting than we could expect again, and 
u Ave were then qualified to settle the question. In reply to Mr. Chilton's reason for 
" postponement, founded on Mr. Scott's absence, I treated it with ridicule. Wear? 
" we incapable of discharging so plain and ordinary an ofliee as ehosing our own 
"candidate without consulting Mr. Scott ? He spoke of respect to Mr. Scott. I 
" thought someftttle respect was due to ourselves, and thai self-respect should 
" prompt us of our unaided and uninstructed judgments, to say whom we chose 
" to represent us. I said thatf established usage and ordinary respect for the constituent 
" body, required of the representative to gi^e notice when he would no longer 
" serve. That a failure to give such notice was a high disrespect to the cpns&or 
" ent body; but that Mr. Scon, sensidl&bf ffte propriety of this custom, had c >,,i- 
" plied with it by writing to me, a public man, the editor of the Whig paper in this 
" county, and authorizing ifte on the proper occasion io announce it. I then read 
"from the letter of Mr. Scott, the extract refusing > ain. I closed my 

u remarks bj slating the admitted fact; that the comity was with Mr. 

"Scott as the representative, and if any ov ■ I he eould be prevailed upbn 

" to serve, that there would be entire unanimity in his nomination. But to obvi- 
" ate all difficulty, 1 announced my purpBse, in the event ol the motion to post- 
" pone being defeated, to propose Robert E. Scott as the choice of the meeting. And 



" in the event of his declining the honor, which we had reason to expect, that I 
u should propose now to select another as our alternate choice." 

The above are full and accurate heads of what I said. My delivery was slow 
end distinct— my voice full and loud, and the deepest silence prevailed in the court- 
house. No one ought to have misunderstood a word I said ; and the Judge, with 
perhaps another, I believe, are all who did misunderstand me. 

Whilst I was speaking, the Judge passed before me in evident excitement, and took 
his seat in front ofthe bar, just under me. When I ceased to speak, the Judge arose 
and commenced his remarks by saying : " It had not been his design to partake ofthe 
" deliberations of the meeting; but that he could not remain quiet when his son — "his 
" absent son," was attacked. That his son had defended him, and he should always 
" defend his son as long as he could " raise an arm, or wag a tongue." (His very 
" language.) He cared not whence came the attack, whether in open and undis- 
" guised war from a manly and avowed enemy, or whether the shaft was sped 
" from the traitor bow of a professed, but hollow friend." (As he closed this sen- 
tence with great emphasis, he directed his looks on me.) He then proceeded to 
state that I had charged Robert Scott with treating his constituents with disrespect ; 
and made a gross misrepresentation of my remarks. I interrupted him for expla- 
nation. I was, of course, compelled to contradict his statements, which I did in 
courteous terms, notwithstanding his rude and insulting remarks. 

I had uttered but a few sentences, when the poor old man sprang to his feet — ■ 
said something about impertinence, dastard, &c; and, advancing upon me, with 
his arm extended, he exclaimed, " I will pull your d — d nose, by God !" I 
gently pressed him back, and in a tone of great earnestness, asked him for God's 
sake to collect himself — to remember who he was. Some friend (Mr. Ingram, I 
think) then took him to his seat. There was, of course, great confusion. Many 
rushed up to prevent mischief. My pc sition was such, being elevated above him, 
and his unguarded advance upon me, placed the Judge at my mercy. His wan- 
ton and aggravating conduct would have justified his destruction. But no such 
passion raged in my bosom — my feelings were of unmixed horror and astonish 1 
ishment. I was perfectly self-possessed and composed. Robert E. Lee, fearing 
would injure his father-in-law, (the Judge) rushed up to me with earnest exclama- 
tions — " don't strike him — don't strike-^-damn you, I will kill you if you hurt 
him." I turned upon Mr. Lee, and told him to set down. "You know, (said I,) 
that you would strike him as soon as I would." I well remember Mr. Lee's man- 
ner. He dropped his hands to his side, and quietly retired to the clerk's table. 

After order was restored, his Honor rose to apologise to the chairman and the 
meeting for his conduct. He did pretty well for about half a minute, but then 
passion took the reins, and the phials of his wrath again were poured out upon 
me. He charged me with having attacked his son, Robert. (Here two or three 
gentlemen to whom his eye was directed, shook their heads in dissent.) " He did, 
so help me God, he did," exclaimed his Honor, in an elevated voice. He called 



8 

me ungrateful — said he had raised me out of the ashes, fyc. fyc. In fine, he said 
every thing of outrage and insult he could think of, until exhausted with rage, he 
had to set down. In my reply, I did not forget myself ; I was excited, it was true ; 
but not one word of disrespect or crimination was uttered against the Judge. I 
defended myself, and reviewed our past relations in a tone of elevated regret — re- 
lations which he had thus violently and unnecessarily broken off. I was called 
to order several times during my speech, and when I pressed the Judge a little 
close, Robert Lee cursed and swore at me like a man in convulsions. I was 
not near enough to strike him, and I saw that if I tried to get at him, it would be 
in vain, and would break us up in a row, so I quietly disregarded him. 

Before the question on postponement was taken, intelligence was received that 
Mr. Robert E. Scott had arrived in the stage. I announced the fact to the meeting, 
and remarked, that now all pretext for postponement was removed — that we 
could now hear from his own mouth whether he had withdrawn. The Judge still 
insisted on postponement, and the question was put and carried by two majority, seve- 
ral gentlemen voting to postpone, because they thought too much excitement then 
prevailed for discreet action. The meeting then adjourned. 

Thinking that our purpose of nominating a candidate had been thwarted by the 
factious violence of one man, who from'his position in society had no right to inter- 
fere in popular assemblies, and resolving not to be thwarted, I called on all who had 
voted against the postponement, to remain in the Court House. We then delega- 
ted Mr. Chilton to wait on Robt. E. Scott, and in our names to offer him the nomi- 
nation. Mr. Chilton in a few minutes returned and announced Mr. Strott's accep- 
tance.* I took that occasion to express my pleasure at this result — I did so because 
I felt the gross injustice of his father who had charged me with being Robert's 
professed friend, but disguised enemy. I was then surrounded by men who had 
known me from my infancy. I asked if any among them had ever recognized hy- 
pocracy and double-dealing as traits of my character. [The house rung with no .' 
no ! no !] I closed my speech by saying that we all must give Robert E. Scott our 
support, for himself — for his own merits — despite of his father. I closed and the 
meeting adjourned, after loud, repeated, and enthusiastic demonstrations of their 
kindness forme. 

Thus have I given a calm, clear, and impartial narrative of what occurred on that 



* Mr. Scott arrived in the stage whilst the meeting was in session, as has been stated. Jno. 
Smith (Baptist) begged him to go direct to the Couit House and consent to serve another term. 
He told him ot our divisions, and earnestly urged him to make the sacrifice for the peace and 
harmony of his friends, if not of his party. Mr. Scott said no ! no ! it was impossible ; that we 
must settle our differences as we could, he could not and would not serve vs. The Richmond 
Whig of that evening announced his withdrawal — his letter to me, and his general conversations 
were all to the same effect. And yet at a single word from his father, after all this, he author- 
ised Mr. Chilton to accept our nomination. Whose wishes was he obeying? Who had power 
to control the election of last spring ? And who did control it ? 



memorable Thursday, the day of March, 1841. I forbear all commentary on 

the conduct of Judge Scott. The hostile relation in which we stand, forbids it 
from me — to others I leave the ungrateful task ; but it is my right — it forms part of 
my cause, that public attention should be called to my conduct and deportment 
throughout that scene. 

In a public meeting, convened for political purposes, a party was formed (of 
which Judge Scott was the head and front) to defeat its action. A gentleman (Mr. 
Chilton) rises, and in a courteous and business manner, moves a postponement. I 
met his motion with such arguments and statements as were absolutely conclusive 
against it. I was offensive to no one, but courteous to all. At this stage, Judge 
Sc ott thrust himself on our meeting, and claimed to be heard in defence of his ab- 
sent son, against an imaginary attack that I had made upon him. As soon as he 
made himself understood, although accompanied with gross and opprobrious insult 
to me, I rose to explain ; and, unmoved by passion, disci timed the attack on Robt. 
Scott which he had charged upon me. This but added fuel to the fire ; and Judge 
Scott, in an assemblage of my fellow-citizens, after wanton insult, rushed upon me 
to inflict the most degrading personal indignity. A calm forbearance still marked 
my conduct; Thank God ! other and higher feelings than those of brute passion, 
filled my bosom. I saw before me, the elevated of station — the exalted in rank — a 
mag.iate of the land, dragged in the feebleness of age, by indulgence of evil and 
violent passions, to the lowest and most shocking degradation. I calmly but 
earnestly begged him to collect himself, and turning to his son-in-law, I sub- 
dued his agitation by saying to him : " Robert Lee sit down — you know you 
would strike that old man as scon as I. 1 ' In the whole scene, I met insult and 
outrage with forbearance. A son could not have treated an unreasonable and vio- 
lent father with greater kindness and respect. 

The reader will search in vain for sufficient, or even a plausible cause of such 
extreme violence and outrage, in any thing I said, or in any occurrence of that meet- 
ing. He must be struck with the total inadequacy of the alledged offence, even if 
I had been guilty. What was that offence, according to Judge Scott's own under- 
standing of it? Why, that Mr. Chilton had gravely asked an assemblage of the 
people (convened at tli3 latest moment too, for the purpose of saying whom they 
chose to represent them) not to exercise this high and inalienable right of free- 
men, because of the absence of his son, Mr. Robert Scott ! ! — alledging that it 
would be more respectful to the young Prince to postpone all action till their 
councils could be graced, and their choice directed, by his royal presence ! ! ! — 
That I, a mere commoner, one whom the Judge says " he raised from the ashes," 
insolently opposed this motion, and argued that some respect was due to ourselves ; 
and that Robert Scott had treated us with disrespect, in failing to announce his 
intention to retire from our service. 

This is all ! ! ! I said that some forty or fifty grown up men could be trusted to 
choose their own representative in Robt. E. Scott's absence ; and further, that he had 
2 



10 

treated us cavalierly by not co.nmunicating his withdrawal from public service ! 
and this is the summum latum of my offence, admitting the Judge to make his own 
statement ! ! Will any man believe that such a ridiculous pretext as this, was the 
real cause of that monstrous outrage upon individual rights and public decency ? 
I have before alluded to the true, but, in that meeting, unmentioned cause, which 
with the blindness of rage impelled its victim. It was Judge Scott's deep-stated, 
long-harbored, unquenchable hatred of Martin P. Brooke, who would inevitably 
have been elevated to the Legislature by the kind approval of his fellow-citizensi 
which in one moment, thus reeked every vestage of Judge Scoffs character and 
reason* 



CHAPTER III. 

The cause of Judge Scotfs violence, 

It gives me no pleasure to delineate the odious traits of Judge Scoffs character; 
but when gross wrong, and most unhappy consequences have sprung directly and 
solely from the hateful vices of his temper, and he seeks to excuse unjust and vio- 
lent treatment of me, by this groundless clamor about his son, justice to myself 
requires that I should not only refute his pretexts, but drag in to open light, the 
true cause of his behavior, however odious. I have shown that nothing was eithe r 
said or done in the meeting to excite the slightest feeling. Robert Scott had been 
treated, not only with respect, but with high courtesy and compliment. In order 
to make manifest, beyond a question, the impulsive cause, it is here necessary to 
give a little detail of his Honor's out o' door conduct. 

I must first state a fact, of undeniable notoriety, to wit* that open, virulent, un- 
disguised hostility does now subsist, and has for years subsisted, between Jtidge 
Scott and his family on the one part, and Martin P. Brooke and Mrs. Ann Brooke, 
his mother. It had its origin in some old matters of account, which I need not 
here explain, and has raged with unexampled violence and continuance. 1 think 
it flamed forth about the year 1829 or '30, and has burned with a bright unquench- 
able light ever since. The Brooke's thought themselves wronged in the settle- 
ment of certain partnership transactions by the Judge, and he treated their complaints 
and accusations with that gentleness and patient forbearance for which he is so 
distinguished. This state of feelings caused much of mutual crimination and per- 
sonal abuse — law suits were brought, and all the delightful scquele of a violent 
family quarrel. 

On one occasion, about two years since, the Judge, trusting to the terror of his 
name, ventured to call on Martin Brooke, in a most brief and imperious note, to 
know " if he had ever spoken disrespectfully of Am." This note elicited from 



u 

Mr. Brooke a prompt avowal of the fact, that he habitually spoke of hi9 Honor 
just pretty much as he pleased. This reply brought on an attack from Robert 
Scott, who tried to intimidate Mr. Brooke by threats of personal chastisement To 
which he was promptly and fiercely defied, and had to make a most clumsy and 
ungracious retreat. Finding that high-handed measures produced no good effect, 
his Honor then tried a more persuasive and coaxing practice ; and indited a 
letter of respectful length, argumentative and courteous in its terms, in which 
he again called on Mr. Brooke to know M Whether, in any of his conversations, ho 
" had made charges of dishonorable conduct, or had used expressions (in relation 
" to the Judge) which a gentleman and a man of honor ought not to permit to be 
" applied to him." This letter was sent by a mutual friend — and, in a letter to that 
friend, which was shown to the Judge, Mr. Brooke assigned as his reason for not 
answering, that he looked upon Robt. E. Scott as the agent of his father, and under 
his instructions in the aforesaid attempt to bully him, and would hold no further 
negotiation with either. 

The Judge here let the matter drop. But it was a devil of a case ! ! Here was 
a fellow, fighting on his own hook, who had bearded the roaring lion — and yet 
lived ! ! .' It was a case Icesa magistatis — it never could be forgiven or forgotten. 
I have adverted to this old transaction to render intelligible the otherwise inexpli_ 
cable conduct of the Judge. No man who knows the Judge will be surprised to 
find him almost furious at the bare thoughts of public favor being directed towards 
his churlish and stubborn adversary — a man who had stood out in defiance of his 
imperious humor, and afterwards in absolute contempt of his most distinguished 
and courteous advances. I will now give a slight sketch of his Honor's conduct, 
" out of doors," before the meeting of the memorable Thursday. 

The Judge says in his letter to me (I refer to his letter of sixteen pages which, 
for distinction and its great length and wonderful contents, I have christened the 
"Great Western,") that he knew my purpose to bring out Martin Brooke for 
the Legislature, at the time of my interview with him, early on Monday. (In this, 
by the way, his Honor is totally mistaken, as I then was in favor of Walden, hav- 
ing for that reason, not ten minutes before, refused to unite with Mr. Kieth in 
Brooke's favor.) [See appendix A, B, C and D.] 

The proposed nomination of Mr. Brooke was highly offensive, both to Judge 
Scott and Robert E. Lee, his soa-in-law. It will be remarked, that Brooke wa9 
brought forward by his friends and neighbors, with no possible reference to the 
Judge or his quarrels. The same men who brought Mr. Brooke forward were 
anxious to continue Robert Scott in public life, and only looked for a substitute, 
because he had voluntarily withdrawn. Thev were the personal and political 
friends both of the Judge and his son. They knew, it is true, of the feud between 
the Scott's and the Brooke's, but they considered that an individual matter, in 
which neither they or the public had any interest or concern. They had seen 
Martin Brooke, forgetful of personal considerations.com? to the polls in support 



12 

of Robert Scott, and they expected equal magnanimity, or at least a decent forbear- 
ance from the Scoti's in his behalf. 

In this we wcie all disappointed. There was no such letter in the book. His 
Honor seems to have lost his balance totally, at the contemplation of such an 
event as Mr. Brooke's election. He spared no exertion to defeat it. His first 
efforts were directed against the intended meeting. As I have before shown, he 
used all his influence to prevent the meeting altogether, and furnished no little 
amusement in our town by his argument about the respect due to "our absent re- 
" presentative who had not publicly withdrawn." Finding that we would hold the 
meeting, his Honor left nothing untried to defeat the dreaded result. He thought 
of running an opposition ticket, and made, as I understood, earnest appeals to Capt. 
Edmonds, Dr. T. T. Withers, and Major Seth Combs, any one of whom would 
doubtless have been highly acceptable to the people of the county. Neither o* 
these gentlemen, though, would consent to serve, and the Judge was left " in ex- 
tremisP 

As a last hope, he endeavored to impress the voters with his own bitter and de- 
grading opinions. I shall scarcely be credited, at a distance, when I state the fact 
that the Judge of the Superior Court of our Circuit, forgetful of his elevated posi- 
tion, and unmindful of that instinctive propriety which retrains even the rudest and 
most uncultivated from becoming volunteer accusers and witnesses against their 
personal enemies, descended into the arena, and in proper person opened his bat- 
teries against Mr. Brooke ! ! ! It was a humiliating spectacle ; but in the interval 
between Monday and Thursday, the day to which the meeting was adjourned, 
the Judge took to the streets, and engaged in a most active and furious canvass 
against his old enemy. He cornered individuals, and expostulated earnestly 
against the choice they were about to make. He sneered at Mr. Brooke — ridiculed 
him as personally, mentally, and corporeally, unworthy of the place. He revived 
old and forgotten tales, and sought to affix stigma and disgrace upon him. 

An anecdote was related to me which, perhaps, better illustrates the blindness of 
his rage than any description I could give. Some gentleman was defending Mr. 
Brooke's nomination, and claiming it to be the strongest which could probably be 
made. In proof, his extensive family connections were referred to ; that he had 
the same relations and connection in the county that Robert Scott had, being his 
first cousin, Sic. The Judge, in reply to this argnment, answered indignantly 
" and how do this strong family propose to treat the county ? They have sent their 
" choicest flower, their head, (meaning his own son, our absent representative") as 
" long as he will consent to serve, and now they seek to put upon the county this 
w d — d bundle of rags ! !" All this fury the Judge asks us to attribute to his zeal 
in the Whig cause, which he feared would be sacrificed by this senseless conduct 
of the people who seemed bent on having Martin Brooke to represent them. It 
was not unworthy personal feeling which rendered the Judge so active — oh ! no ! it 
was the most exalted patriotism ! ! D — d patrioticisnu as the old Frenehman said 



13 

when they seized his cotton at New Orleans to make a rampart for our army — 
"all this put down to the account of patrioticism, eh ! ! ! 

This conduct on the part of the Judge naturally produced excitement with those 
who favored Mr. Brooke's nomination. I felt indignant. Knowing the bitter mu- 
tual dislike of the parties, it struck me as indecent. Self respect should have restrain- 
ed the Judge from thrusting himself into a position where his motives could be 
assailed. He had the right, beyond all question, to oppose the nomination ; but 
his judicial station prescribed a withdrawal from such contest, and his hostile rela- 
tions utterly forbade an active and violent participation. He had forced an issue 
on us — the friends of Mr. Brooke, whether the man whom we wished to advance, 
was morally worthy, he himself being the accuser and clamorous denouncer. — 
The alternative presented to us, was tame submission to an arrogant dictation, or a 
manly assertion of our rights and privileges as citizens. If the Judge had a right 
to attack our choice, we had the right to defend it, and parry the attack in the best 
and most effective manner. The Judge had made it a question between the grati- 
fication of his own bad passions and the moral prostration of his foe — that foe 
being my most attached friend and near kinsman. He had assumed the character 
of public accuser and informer, and standing in that relation to the subject, was to 
be dealt with accordingly. J, for one, did not hesitate. And why should I ? I 
differed from the Judge, toto coslo, in his estimate of Mr. Brooke's qualifications 
and character. I esteemed him a good and worthy man — I knew he possessed in 
an unusual degree political information and intelligence — I knew him to be a sound 
Whig, one who had sacrificed his private feelings towards the Judge's own son, for 
the sake of his principles. More than all this, he was my near kinsman and friend — 
a friend who had stood by me with undeviating affection through a period of more 
than twenty years. Why should I hesitate ? It was my right as a citizen to prefer 
him — it was my duty as a man to shield him from the unjust moral prostration pre- 
pared for him by a most unrelenting enemy. I did not hesitate, but openly and 
unreservedly condemned the conduct of the Judge. I asked, why does he seek to 
make the public the ministering agent to work out vengeance for his private 
wrongs? a question, by-the-bye, which was almost in every one's mouth, and 
which effectually broke the force of his attack on Mr. Brooke. 

The foregoing detail of the "out door" relations and conduct of the Judge must 
have satisfied the reader that his violence in the meeting on Thursday was not oc- 
casioned by the ostensible cause — my attack " on his absent son." Nor did it pro- 
ceed from resentment against me for questioning his patriotic motives " out of 
doors," fgf'for he was then ignorant that I had done so.*££ nor did he hear of it 
for many weeks, till his course towards me was shaped and resolved upon. It re- 
mains only to narrate one more fact, and the most partial and skeptical of the 
Judge's friends will admit that the original and impulsive cause of all his violence 
was hatred of Martin Brooke, and a desperate determination, at all hazards, and any 
sacrifice, to prevent his election. 



14 

Judge Scott says in u The Great Western" that he was invited to attend the 
meeting by Dr. T. T. Withers, and that he attended not as a member, but to answer 
a question which, in a certain event, the Doctor was to propound to him. If the 
motion to postpone failed, and the meeting went into a nomination, the Doctor who 
preferred Robert E. Scott — as we all did — wished to ask the Judge whether, " un- 
der any circumstances" Robert E. Scott could be prevailed upon to serve another 
session ? Which question the Judge had told the Doctor he should answer affir- 
matively. Big with this important but most oracular reply, the Judge attend- 
ed the meeting, not as a member though, for he sat behind the bar. Whether 
he was positively to accept the nomination in Robert's name, Ave have no revela- 
tion ; but he has vouchsafed to certify thus far — that in reply to a pre-arranged 
question to be propounded by Df. Withers, he, the Judge, would say to the meeting 
that in his opinion Robert Scott might, under some immaginable circumstances, be 
prevailed upon to serve another term ! ! And this loose opinion of his, the Judge 
expected would fill the meeting with a new joy, and result in the nomination of 
Robert Scott, with or without a pledge of acceptance. 

The question which the Doctor was to ask was, whether, " under any circum- 
stances" Robt. E. Scott would consent to serve ? and the Judge, we have seen, was 
sitting behind the bar, loaded with an affirmative reply, " Under any circumstan- 
ces!" This was to me exceedingly indefinite and unsatisfactory. To settle the 
Maine Boundary or the McLeod question with Great Britian, or to prevent a disso- 
lution of the Union, are objects to accomplish which, Mr. Scott might, in the opin- 
ion of his father, consent to serve ; but I had a curiosity to learn, if to prevent the 
nomination and consequent election of Martin P. Brooke did not come within 
the category, and in fact was not'the identical " circumstance'''' to which the Judge 
referred. With a view to ascertain what was meant by " any circumstances," I read 
that portion of "The Great Western" to Dr. Withers in which he is referred 
to, and the Doctor frankly gave me a full statement of his agency in the matter. 
He says, that before the meeting on Thursday, he became convinced that Mr- 
Brooke's friends would prove too strong ; that in a conversation with the Judge, he 
told him if a nomination was made he might rest assured Brooke would get it, un- 
less Robert Scott would agree to serve — that it was idle to oppose Brooke in any 
other way. He asked the Judge if, under such circumstances, Robert Scott would 
not consent to serve ? to which the Judge answered affirmatively. It was then 
agreed between them if the motion to postpone failed, and the meeting proceeded to 
nominate, that the Doctor should put the question to the Judge — the Judge should 
answer affirmatively, and then the Doctor would put Robt. Scott in nomination. 

Here, then, is a solution of the misterious " any circumstances," which was again 
to throw into the councils of Virginia, " this choicest jlowcr, this Iwad of a most 
numerous and powerful family!!" Those who yet believe the Judge was influ- 
enced by high and laudable considerations, are welcome to their opinions. My 
mind, however, "is so constituted," that I do not doubt the true cause of all his ex- 
traordinary conduct was hatred of Martin Brooke. 



15 

When this, the real and undoubted cause, the living spring of all the outrage and 
commotion is well understood, it is humiliating, but not without its amusement, to 
observe the shallow pretexts and flimsy coverings with which conscious unworthi- 
ness sought to hide and cover its deformity. The " monstrous absurdity," as the 
Judge terms it, which the foolish people were about to perpetrate (of chosing their 
own representative ! !) fired his heart Avith rage and vegeance. He at once resolved 
it otherwise ; and wanting the aid of his son Robert, he sought to postpone the popu- 
lar action till his return. Hence we saw the old man arguing, on the streets, against 
holding a meeting of citizens, because his son was absent, (! !) as if the simplest 
duty could not be done without him. But what was positively ludicrous^he thought 
to extinguish all notion of a meeting by impressing on the citizens the far-fetched 
idea that it would be a disrespect to " our absent representative who had not pub- 
licly withdrawn from their service ! ' !" Mark the fact, though, that every body 
knew Robert Scott had declined a .re-election. His father, even then, openly said 
so — all his friends said so — and it was known that I had his own letter of with, 
drawal, in which he requested me to call a meeting and nominate some one else.* 
The thing is too obvious. The Judge wanted time — he was not ready for action — 
he awaited a reinforcement — and all that importunate demand for respect to his 
own son was but a ridiculous pretext. 

Whilst he was soliciting Capt. Edmonds, Major Combs, and Dr. Withers, to ac- 
cept the nomination, I wonder if he thought their acceptance would be disrespect- 
fid to our absent representative who had not then publicly withdrawn ! ! ! and 
whilst under the guise of strong party attachment, he was denouncing the nomination 
of Mr. Brooke as certain defeat of the Whigs and the loss of the county, and claim- 
ing to be influenced by high public considerations, he attacked the moral character 
of the man he hated ; what must have been his feelings when one of our most un- 
pretending citizens, to whom he addressed himself, consulting the impulse of an 
honest heart, advised him for his own sake not to speak thus of his enemy — that 
people talked about it, and would be disgusted with him ! But when informed by 
Dr. Withers, a cool, observant, and intelligent man, that unless R. Scott would con- 
sent to serve, Brooke would surely be the candidate. When the elevation of his 
enemy or the ruin of his own son were thus placed before him, (because, be it 
known, the Judge has over and over declared that Robert was making ruinous 
sacrifices by remaining in public life,) did he even then falter ? Where then was 
the covering with which he tried to veil the deformity of his bad passions ? Reader 
let me tell you. The importance of the approaching Legislature became suddenly 
vastly magnified. There was to be a new apportionment of representation. The 
State had to be laid off into new districts. Jl suitable Congressional District (I 



* Under such circumstances what disrespect could there be, in a community on the eve of an 
election, to look out for a substitute ? Could Judge Scott have really thought it so ? It was all 
stuff! 



16 

presume) to be provided for his son. In fine, unless Robert consented, the Locos 
would carry the county and probably the State ! Thus charged with " patriotism," 
(the old Frenchman's " patriot icism") his honor, with a firmness which would have 
done credit to the Roman Cato, resolved on the sacrifice of his own son in his 
country's cause ! Ye that are credulous, hear! proclaim this to the Marines ! ! ! 



CHAPTER IV. 

The Judge's resemblance to Napoleon Bonaparte. 

The character of Judge Scott, or rather that unfortunate trait, the ungovernable 
and illimitable inveteracy of his heart, has required of me more narrative and illus- 
tration, than seems properly to belong to my portion of this controversy ; but there 
is a connection, direct and immediate, between myself and the subject thus ampli- 
fied, which is a leading cause of the savage attack recently made upon me. Judge 
Scott best understands the political relations of ourjcounty. He knows that, on the 
withdrawal of his son from the Legislature, the vacancy has to be supplied by some 
one, and that his own conduct has greatly increased the prominence of Mr. 
Brooke's claims for the place. He is too well acquainted with the human heart to 
believe that the free citizens of this county will tamely cower before his imperious 
and insulting conduct, and yield their choice to his high and dictatorial temper. 
He well knows the purposes of Mr. Brooke's friends, (numerous, respectable and 
true,) to nominate him for the next Legislature on Robert Scott's withdrawal. He 
knows that Mr. Brooke, chafing under his vindictive charges, has already avowed 
his purpose of seeking a nomination. He knows well that my feeble aid and hum- 
ble influence will not be wanting to sustain the character and advance the claims of 
my friend and kinsman. Thus he sees that I shall again be in his pathway, to the 
best of my ability, interposing between the hated victim and his ruthless vengeance. 

Historians say of Napoleon Bonaparte, that when he had an object to attain, he 
would deliberately calculate with pencil and paper how many lives it would cost ; 
and in cold blood, would then throw upon the venture the requisite mass of human 
life. The Judge being on a different theatre, is not so sanguinary ; but when he 
has an object in view, he deliberately enquires, "How much of ' human character'' 
must be sacrificed to attain it." No man can oppose him, even in his most unrea- 
sonable and unnecessary views of matters of common interest and concernment, 
without becoming instantly, in the eyes of the Judge, "a monster," worthy of 
exposure. His Honor has had very numerous controversies in this county ; and 
it is marvelous to look back at the extraordinary number of "moral monsters" 
it has been his hard fate to encounter. If ever he comes into collision with a 
man, his first blow is at his moral standing. Nothing short of the moral prostra- 



17 

Hon of an adversary will satiate his morbid, and worse than hyena appetite. I have 
been shocked to hear him boast of the care with which, for a quarter of a century, 
he has preserved the memory and the evidence of false steps taken by men, with 
whom he was on apparently good terms, to be used on some future occasion 
against them.* As long as the Judge was a lawyer, this shocking proclivity found 
its appropriate nutriment in prosecuting the wretched criminals at the bar of jus- 
tice, but his promotion to the bench, whilst it snatched from him his customary 
aliment, failed to destroy the inhuman appetite. 

The Judge's all-absorbing object for the present, is to direct the next spring elec- 
tion in our county, or at any rate to prohibit the people from electing that most 
hateful M. P. Brooke to the Legislature. Like the great Napoleon, he has made his 
calculations, and thinks it essential to his object, that two characters at least should 
be sacrificed, and he accordingly deliberately commences his operations. Mr. 
Brooke, of course, is the first victim, and is to be immolated without benefit of clergy. 
Poor fellow, he will have to go, there's no hope for him, God help him ! For the 
other victim, I feel a most decided interest and sympathy. The Judge's character, 
killer, has been directed, I think, most wantonly and unjustly against him. It is 
Mrs. Glass, who, in her directions how to cook a trout, tells us we must first 
" catch till trout?'' Regardless of this most necessary pre-requisite, his Honor 
cooks " his monsters' 1 '' before he catches them. My numerous friends and acquain- 
tances will be astonished to find me presented to their view as " a moral monster?'' by 
the Judge. But so it is ; the fiat has gone forth, and Martin Brooke and myself 
are braced together by the Judge, and doomed to a common sacrifice. I suppose 
he thinks there is juice enough in the 'Squire to cook us both. 

It is somewhat in advance of events, as they occurred, but this is the most pro- 
per place to state that the Judge has fully developed the whole scheme of his next 
spring campaign, in "the Great Western," a piratical craft of clumsy struc- 
ture, recently launched by his Honor, freighted to her bows with munitions of con- 
traband war. In this letter addressed to me, he again assails " the moral character" 
of Mr. Brooke, and seeks his prostration as a man and a citizen I am at a loss to 
decide whether I am indebted to an original and independent malice whibh has 
arisen against me, for the honor of being associated with, and sharing the prostra- 
tion of Mr. Brooke, or whether the destruction of my character is the result of one 
of those Napoleon calculations before referred to. Owing to my position in the 
county, and the spirit of insolent independence I have indicated, the Judge, perhaps, 
has concluded on my " moral prostration?'' merely as an incident to that of Mr. 



*I verily believe that his Honor keep3 a regular black book, like the notorious Mrs. Ann Eoyall, 
in which he transcribes the imprudences and in proprieties of all his intimates and friends. I am 
certainly authorized by the scandalous contents of "the Great Western," to believe hi • 
Honor has been " a hoarding" for me. 
3 



18 

Brooke. In the skeleton of his next spring campaign against Mr. Brooke, fur- 
nished ns in M the Great Western," it seems that I am to be represented as 
bringing Mr. Brooke out. lie is u my candidate" — and, to cast utter contempt and 
odium on the scheme, the most degrading and sordid motive is to be attributed to 
me. I am to be represented as making every sacrifice of individual integrity, for 
the groveling purpose of inheriting Mrs. Brooke's fortune, or that of her son !* 

Surely there is nothing in my past life to warrant such a charge ! I have thrown 
away a great deal of money — much that I had no right to throw away, because it 
did not belong to me. I have been thoughtless and extravagant, but never sordid. 
I have given up much that fairly belonged to me, but have never yet been charged 
with seeking fortune by undue means. It has been left to the unscrupulous malice 
of the Honorable Judge Scott, to asperse my character with the charge of sordid 
avarice. I will now resume my narrative, and detail events more in the order of 
their occurrence. 



CHAPTER V. 

Judge Scott and R. E. Lee Apologise. 

It will be remembered that I had just detailed the shocking scene in the court- 
house, and its result, the nomination of Robert Scott to the Legislature ; when I 
digressed to explain the motive cause of the Judge's behaviour on that occasion. I 
will now return to my history, and hasten it from that point to its conclusion. 

When Judge Scott had time to cool, alter the stormy scene of Thursday, the 
enormity of his conduct had no justification. For the first time, his own family 
dared to murmur. His accusing conscience sorely tormented him ; but more than 
all a deep-toned, uncontrolable public opinion condemned him. Self-interest— nay , 
self-preservation, required that he should propitiate the public feeling. The inte- 
rest of his son prompted him, and he determined to offer an apology for his outrages- 
Cn the morning of the next day, I received, through the hands of Mr. Chilton, the 

following letter : 

" Warrenton, March 26, 1841. 

"Sir: I have always thought it more praiseworthy to acknowledge an error than 

« to persist in it, and more honorable to repair an injury than to aggravate by attempt- 

« ing to justify it. I do not hesitate, therefore, to say to you, and all others present 

• For the truth of this charge, see Appendix A 15 C D. Judge Scott knows it is untrue ; and 
yet, in his pamphlet he reiterates it, and makes it (he basis of his unjustifiable abuse of me. As 
I have repeatedly said I knew nothing of the design to briqg Mr. Brooke forward, and when it 
was told to me on Monday, I distinctly opposed it to both Isham Keith and Martin Brooke. Of 
this, Judge Scott is fully apprised ; and yet, for the purpose of injuring Mr. Brooke and myself, 
and to effect his determined purpose of controlling the next County election, he impudently per- 
sists in the false charge. I again refer the reader to Appendix A B C and D. 



19 

" at the unpleasant occurrence of yesterday evening, that I was wron<rfrom begin. 
" ning to end. You certainly did make the remarks which I attributed to you, and 
" which produced the excitement under which I acted ; others heard them as well as 
" myself; but then I ought at once to have accepted your explanation, and should 
" certainly have done so, but reason had given way to passion — an infirmity which 
" seems to increase with age. Take this as you may, I have but discharged a duty 
tf which I owe to myself as well as others. 

" Yours, 

"JOHN SCOTT. 
" A. J. Marshall, Esq." 

I will state, that before the letter was handed to me, different friends had told 
me that a full and sufficient apology was written ; and I was prepared to expect one 
in all respects satisfactory. Mq§nr Wallace had also delivered an apology from 
Robert Lee, which showed his determination to do full, just, and sincere reparation 
for the insult he had cast upon me. [ For Mr. Lee's apology, see my note on the 
Great Western.] When I read the above letter, I, was disgusted and incensed at 
the littleness of spirit which it indicated. He had attempted to degrade me before 
the public— he had, without cause, but in great passion, abused and insulted me. I 
had treated him with respect and forbearance ; and when perfectly in my power, 
having forfeited all the protection which age and relationship could claim, I had acted 
in mercy and kindness to him. He was now apologising for his outrage; and in 
what spiiit did he approach ? Is there one expression of regret for the wrong he 
had done me ? It was an apology to the public for his public outrage. It was no 
apology to me personally, at all. It rather aggravated the offence, for he again brings 
a charge which I had solemnly denied. 

In this frame of mind, I promptly wrote the following reply, which the reader 
will see is, in fact, a sneer, and a sarcasm : 

"March 26, 1841. 
*j Sir : I agree with you perfectly that ' it is always more praiseworthy to acknow- 
" ledge an error than to persist in it,' and more honorable 'to repair an injury than 
" aggravate by-attempting to justify it.' I therefore think you were bound to do 
tt as you have done— admit yourself ' wrong from beginning to end.' You reiterate 
" the assertion (after a most solemn denial on my part) that I certainly did make 
" the remarks which you attributed to me, and which produced the excitement under 
" which you acted, stating that others heard them as well as yourself; but then you 
" say you ought at once to have accepted my explanation. In regard to the fact 
« which you so positively repeat, I have simply to say, in your own language, a little 
*' changed, ' that I certainly did not make the remarks which you attributed to me, 
•" and that others confirm my assertion.' 



20 

'•Take this as you may. in making this reply, 4 1 have but discharged a duty which 
u I owe to myself and no one else. 

"Yours, 

" A. J. MARSHALL. 
"To Judge Scott/' 

I read the above letter to Doctor Clarkscn, ar.d athisinstar.ee withheld it, to 
allow him an opportunity to converse with the Judge, and procure frcm him a letter 
that would Ik- satisfactory. 

In a few hours I saw the Doctor again, who told me that the Judge intended his 
letter as a full apology, and considered it sc — that he was willing that the last sen- 
tence should be stricken out, or, if 1 preferred it, he would write it over again, 
"omitting the last sentence?'' I felt an indignant contempt for the unworthy, false 
pride which thus bargained and huckstered in an a£tir that ought to have been mat- 
ter of honorable impulse. I told my friend that Judge Scott knew what was satis- 
factory and sufficient, and that nothing short of that would answer. I then copied 
off the foregoing letter, which I had written in the morning, and as scon as I could 
find Mr. Chilton, sent it through him to the Judge.* 

The Judge received my letter about sundown on Friday, and in about an hour 
Mr. Chilton delivered me the following letter from the Judge : 

" Warrenton, March 26, 1841. 

"Sir: Your answer to my note of this morning has been received. After the 
" full and ample apology which I tendered you for an acknowledged wrong — the 
" more ample from the verbal explanation given to Dr. Clarkson, in which I 
" expressly declared that I meant it to be as ample as a man of honor could make : 
" I regret to find that 1 have not been met with a feeling corresponding to that 
" which I flattered myself the apology would have excited. Were I as punctilious 
" as you seem inclined to be, I would be justified in returning your note, more 
" especially as, accoi cling to my notions of the intercourse between gentlemen, if 
" you deemed the apology insufficient, it was your duty to me to point out the 
" insufficiency, and if you deemed it sufficient, it was your duty to mc to accept it, 
" whereas you say that your note is dictated by a sense of duty to yourself, 'and 
" no one else. 1 Yet as you have not absolutely closed the door to the reconcilia- 
" tion which the connection between us renders so desirable, (you certainly have 
" not opened it,) I will construe your note into a simple acceptance of my apology. 
" Something more, however, is necessary to be done before I can propose to place 
" our relations on their former footing. 1 too have my grievances, which 1 will 
" proceed to state. 

" First, then, I complain that you drew a line of separation between us, and 
" withheld that confidence which our previous relation demanded, in purposely omit- 
l: ting to communicate to me your determination to effect the nomination of Mr. 



21 

« Brooke. Whatever the relations between me and that gentleman may be, they 
" did not and could not forbid a free interchange of opinions between you and me 
" as to the probability of his being elected. 

" Secondly : when in a conversation which I sought with you, I pressed the pro- 
" priety of nominating Capt. Edmonds ; so far from your acquainting me with your 
" predetermination to take up Mr. Brooke, you pleaded your pledges to Col. Walden, 
" and said you would take no part in the contemplated meeting, farther than perhaps 
" to record its proceedings"- that you would not nominate any person, but if Col. 
" Walden should be nominated, you considered yourself bound to vote for him. 

"Thirdly: after this conversation, in which not one word passed justifying the 

" least estrangement, you held yourself aloof from me, and on yesterday morning 

" met me with coldness, and accosted me by my title in so marked a manner, that I, 

" in reply, felt myself bound to use the unwonted address Mr., and thus was estab- 

" lished betwe3n us on your motion a cold formality in lieu of the familiarity and affec- 

<' tion of onrformsr intercourse. I will say nothing of your earnest and pointed opposi- 

" tion to a postponement of the nomination, which was considered by others, as well 

" as myself, but a decent respect to my son and your absent friend ; nor of the affront 

" which would have been given to him by your plan to couple his nomination with 

" that of another, saying, in effect, ' you may be our candidate if you wish, but it 

11 is a matter of indifference whether you are or not, as, in case you decline, we are 

" provided with another.' These make a part of the transaction to which my first 

" note relates, and although I consider them as extenuations at least of the irrita- 

" tion under which I labored, I make no abatement from my apology on that 

" account. I am constrained, however, to say, that although had a different tone 

" characterized your answer, I should have waived a redress of my grievances ; I 

" now feel myself called on to suggest to you the propriety of a reparation, as the 

" means necessary to the restoration of our former relations. 

" Yours, 

"JOHN SCOTT. 
"A. J. Marshall, Esq." 

Here was the true spirit. Here was a character displayed, which, above all 
others, I most love and admire. He was wrong — he had done wrong — he had 
offered gross and unmeasured insult, and his reparation was now without stint and 
without measure. There was here no paltering with false shame ; but under an 
insulting and sneering letter from the man to whom he had owed the reparation, he 
wrote a full, frank, and generous apology. Here, for the first time, the Judge sub- 
dued me ; and had I have been in his presence, I should have bowed down in 
perfect and sincere reconciliation. On the receipt' of this letter, 1 followed the im- 
pulse of my feeling, and promptly returned the following reply : 

"March 26, 1841. 
" Sir : Your second letter has been read and respectfully considered. I care but 
" little for forms in the adjustment of difficulties, if I recognise the spirit of con- 



22 

" (filiation and regret in the conduct of the aggressor. Implacability forms no fea- 
* ture of m\ character ; and however deeply the unfortunate occurrence of Thurs- 
*• day may have wounded my feelings, the ma 1I3 an I full acknowledgment accom- 
" panied by the evidence of unfeigned regret contained in your letter, have disarmed 
" me " ! all resentment. I should he wanting in candor were I not to saj that your 
*■ last letter is entirely satisfactory. I km w not what can be done to repair injuries 
" farther than to acknowledge and regret them. 1 should always promptly offer 
" this Reparation if I was the aggressor, and when aggrieved, I cheerfully receive it 
" as a reparation. In regard to the causes of complaint which you detail, 1 cer- 
" tainly did not intend offence : and with this brief disclaimer, will not trouble you 
" with lengthy explanations. I do not know that more need be said. It is my 
•• wish to resp( nd frankly to what I conceive to be the conciliatory spirit of your 
u letter. 

" Respectfully, yours, 

"A.J.MARSHALL. 
"■•The Hon. Johx Scott." 

It will be observed that in n plying to what Judg3 S:ott calls his grievances, I 
did so very briefly. They were of a very trivial nature as specified, and not such 
as should inl irp e a difficulty to a conciliation. Besides, he expressly said 0* 
them, "that he abated nothing from his apology on their account." I therefore 
passed them over with the hasty assurance that 1 had intended no offence in the re- 
spects specified by him. 

Here, then, was this unhappy affair amicably and honorably adjusted. On the 
succeeding day, (Saturday, i 1 was detained at home by the indisposition of my 
family till about noon. When 1 went up town, the Judge had gone to Oakwood 
so that I did not then meet him, nor did I then meet with Mr. Lee. But I found 
the result of the affair had spread a universal pleasure through the town. I heard 
from every quarter that Judge Scott and Robert Lee were delighted at the amicable 
result, and were unmeasured in censuring their own conduct. To onegentleman, 
the Judge said : u Iam rejoiced it is settled^ for my uncontrolabh temper had be- 
trayed me 'mind devil of a scrape." Similar speeches were made to others; and 
in some few days afterwards, on being told by Mr. William McCoy, in reply to a 
question, that his conduct in the meeting was very much and harshly talked of by 
the people of the county, he said: "If any man thinks vvorse of il than I do 
myself, ' "''^ abandon my opinion and, adopt his." Such speeches, and many 
more, were kindly reported to me by mutual friends, with a view of further soften- 
ing and conciliating my feelings. 

There was one circumstance, however, thai awakened my suspicions as to the 
Judge's sincerity. On the morning after the adjustment, fearing that I would, in 
justice to myself, make a publication of " the adjustment," he deposited the corres- 
pondence in the Clerk's office, to be seen by all whose curiosity might lead them 



23 

to read it. But, at the foot of my second letter, he appended the following note • 

"Note. — Upon perusing the above letter, I remarked to Mr. Chilton, who had 

■' acted as the mutual friend of the parties in bearing their letters, that I understood 

u Mr. M. as admitting the correctness of my statement of what I called my grie- 

■' vances, in the letter to which this is an answer. Upon examination, Mr. Chilton 

•' concurred with me in opinion that such was the obvious meaning of the sentence 

' next to the last in the letter. I then authorized him to say that, so understanding 

it, I was satisfied ; but that, as the affair between Mr. M. and myself had taken 

place in public, I should place a copy of the correspondence in the Clerk's office 

for the perusal of such as desired to read it; that I wished to avoid the 

• newspapers. 

"J. SCOTT." 

When I read the above note, it struck me that false pride had again prevailed over 
a more gensrous impulse. It looked again like paltering and huckstering for small 
advantages. A superficial reader would conclude that I, the insulted party, had 
" made admissions," whereupon he had authorized a mutual friend to say, " that he 
was satisfied." At any rate, not chosing to allow the Judge's grievances to stand 
confessed against me, and of imperishable record, with all or any inferences which 
might be deduced therefrom, I determided to note it a little too. So I quietly filed 
in the same Clerk's office a second note on the Judge's note, also for the benefit of 
the curious. Here is my note : 

" I cannot consent to allow the inference drawn by Judge Scott and Mr. Chilton 
" to remain uncontradicted, as it does m ■ wrong. I intended to make no admission 
" as to Judge Scott's ' grievances,' but simply to disavow all intentions to give offence. 

" I did not consider the complaints of the Judge as having any necessary connec- 
" tion with the matter under adjustment ; nor did the Judge, as he expressly says in 
" his last letter, after detailing these grievances, that he makes no abatement from his 
" apology on account of them. Looking to the substance, and not meaning to be 
" turned aside by foreign and as we both considered immaterial matter, I waived the 
" consideration of Judge Seott's complaints, by a simple disclaimer of any purpose 
' of offence. I cannot, in any way, consent to be placed in the wrong in this mat- 
" ter, and therefore append this note to protest against the inference which the 
" Judge and Mr. Chilton put upon my letter. Not wishing to involve further dis- 
" cussion of an unpleasant affair, I will add that I do not object to the facts stated 
" by the Judge, but that there are other facts having a bearing on the subject, which 
" would discharge me of all possible complaint. 

"A. J.MARSHALL. 

"Filed March, 1841." 

And here the matter rested until Monday, the 3d day of May, a period of more 
than five weeks. 



24 

CHAPTER VI. 

The Judge Backslides — Falls from Grace — Retracts his Apologies, and renews 
, Hostilities. 

A day or two after the '■•adjustment,'''' I went on private business to the District, 
and was detained there eight or ten days. On my return, I found a very sour feeling' 
existed in the coun'y, which threatened danger to the Whig cause. The Van Buren 
j tarty had nominated their candidates, and large classes of the Whigs were malcon- 
tent on account of the manner and circumstances of Robert Scott's nomination. 
He was looked upon, not as a candidate of his own choice, or of the peoples' 
chosing, but by command of his father. He was considered and called " the Judge's 
candidate,'''' an opprcbrium which I justly feared, not even danger of party defeat 
would overbalance. I bestired myself actively and earnestly in Mr. Scott's behalf, 
and was instrumental in allaying excitement, and conciliating the disaffection of the 
Whigs, 

For two or three weeks after the "adjustment," both the Judge and Robert Lee 
were housed closely at Oak wood by a heavy affliction that threatened them. Mrs. 
Lee, (daughter of the Judge,) was taken ill, and for some time her life was despaired 
of. From this, and other causes, I never met with either gentleman until Monday, 
the 3d of May ; nor was there any direct communication between us. My expec- 
tation was, that when we met we would certainly meet as acquaintances ; and on 
Monday, the 3d of May, seeing Robert Lee in a circle of gentlemen, I joined the 
circle to give him the opportunity of speaking, if he intended our future intercourse 
to be of that nature. Mr. Lee failed to offer me his hand, and thus elected our 
future relations. A few minutes after this, I went into Mr. Helm' 1 * counting-room, 
and mentioned the result of my interview with Robert Lee. Mr White, ^a clerk 
of Mr. Helm's,) turned to a drawer, and taking out a letter, remarked, "here is an 
account which I think you ought to have ; it has been here some weeks." It was 
a note addressed to Erasmus Helm, Esquire, and was as follows : 

u Dr. — Ji. J. Marshall, in account with Jno. Scott. 

k - To your assumpset for Anderson, - - - $8 00 

" 1835. To one quarter of ' BeeFF' per Wm. Welch, 175 lbs. at 7 cts., 12 15 
« 1836. To one mutton, 4 00 



&24 15 



" By subscription to the Times, and charge for advertising, - 

" Mr. Helm will please adjust the above account with Mr. M., and let me know 
" the result. If there are any errors in the above charges, they will be corrected. 
u They are made from memory." J. S. 

There was no date to the above note, but on inquiry, I ascertained from Mr. 
White, that it had been sent in by the Judge on the 12th of April, whilst I was ab- 



25 

sent in Washington.* I asked Mr. Helm' why he had withheld it from me so long? 
Ha replied it had not been his intention to give it to me at all ; that 1 e meant to see 
the Judge and get him to choose a different time for the call — his own good feel- 
ing prompting the opinion that such a call at such, a time, was in conflict with the 
restoration of those friendly relations of which the Judge had spoken in his second 
letter to me. This account, and the conduct of Mr. Lee, indicated ths determina- 
tion of the Oak wood family, to Cut off further intercourse witli me ; hut all doubt 
on this point was removed, when on my return home, I found nearly a bushel of 
borrowed books returned to me from the Judge's house. 

It is the privilege of every man in this country to select his own friends and ac-- 
quaintances. No man has the light to complain if another choses to withdraw in- 
tercourse from him. But I confess I felt vexed and hurt at my treatment oh this 
occasion. The Judge had come down, and swallowed so much to propitiate me, 
and begged so hard to be restored to my good graces, that my vanity had been 
awakened, and my consequence in my own eyes vastly marnified. It was very 
mortifying to be thus cut by a high dignitary, who but a few weeks before had 
written in such courteous and flattering strains. However, such is the plastic na- 
ture of the human mind, that it soon befits the circumstances in which we are 
placed, and I found myself actually contented and cheerful, even as a proscribed 
outcast from the acquaintance of his Honour. I determined to treat the account as 
a business matter,, and settle it through Mr. Helm, the channel selected by the Judge. 
In regard to our intercourse, that was an affair which either party had the poioer 
and the right to break at pleasure. 

I made out my account for printing. &.c, and included a fee bill of ten dollais 
which the clerk of Culpeper had passed to me on the Judge, but which Mr. Chil- 
ton had lost. I, however, took Mr. Chilton's certificate of the transfer, and loss of 
the fee bill, so as to prove the justice of the claim, and sent it with the account- 
As it seemed to be the wish of the Judge to have a general and final settlement, I 
was under the impression that I had never collected from him my clerk's fees from 
1832 to 1835, inclusive. During that interval, it had been my habit to reserve ia 
my own hands the bills due from particular friends and acquaintances. I did not 
remember ever to have asked the Judge for his, and I was sure I had never placed 
his bills in the hands of the sheriff! It was my habit, also, to reserve the bills of 



* This account was sent in on the 12th of April. The reader will see that it was to indicate 
the hostile relations which ware in future to subsist between us. His daughter was then on the 
bed of death, as her physicians feared. Two days before, her life had been despaired of, and 
her recovery then, and for weeks afterwards, was thought most doubtful. It is curious and most 
melancholy to observe, how his bad temper, even at such a moment, asserted dominion over his 
better natuu?. Whilst Death was groping in his chamber l'or a victim, and was wringing in 
its cold grasp his very heart strings. Judge Scott could find time to indulge his bad passion', and 
emDloyed that awful moment in forging implement: of discord and annoyancs. 
4 



26 

gome friends, not intending to present them at all ; these I kept in a separate bundle? 
and I have thought it probable the Judge's bills were in that bundle. But, unfortu 
nately, that bundle had been lost. As my relations with the Judge were now 
changed, I thought it right to bring these old bills into the settlement, if I hadnevet 
received them : so I took a certificate of their amount from the fee book (about 
$35) and in a brief note explained my doubts in regard to the claim ; but know- 
ing the Judge was systematic in the preservation of his papers, I said in a few 
minutes he could determine whether he had paid me or not. I reserved no copy of 
the note which accompanied my claim for the fee bill ; but as the Judge took of" 
fence at the claim, it becomes necessary that I should be as full as possible in ex- 
plaining it. 

Here is a copy of my account, enclosed in a note to Mr. Helm. [I also enclosed 
Mr. Chilton's certificate in relation to the Culpeper fee bill, and my claim for fee 
bills, amounting to about $35, with the explanation, but reserved no copy of 
either. 

u The Hon. Judge Scott to the Virginia Times in account, Dr. 

1837. 

July To advertising laborers wanted - - - - $1 00 

1838. 

Dec. 11. To printing note of error to the Ward pamphlet - - 1 00 

To fee bill due from Judge Scott to the clerk of Culpeper, 
and transferred to the Times for printing, by said clerk. 
(See Samuel Chilton's certificate herewith,) - - 10 

1841. 

May 3, To subscription from October 3, 1836, to May 3, 1841, four 

years and seven months, at $3 - - - - 13 75 

March 13. To publishing order against absent defendants in the case 
of E. D. Scott, J. H. Scott, and R. M. Scott, against Daniel 
Stc. — two and a half squares, ten insertions ; the above 
bill charged to Judge Scott by his oral directions given 
to Mr. Devaughn - - - - - 6 87 



$32 62 



Credit. 



By account as rendered through Mr. Helm, which although left with 

him on the of was not delivered to A. J. M. till the 3d 

day of May - - - - - - - $24 15 



47 



A. J. MARSHALL. 



27 

Mr Helm will please adjust the above account with Judge Scott, and if there is 
no error in the charges he can give a full receipt for the balance. 

In regard to the charge of $12 15 for beef furnished me in 1835, as per Judge 
Scott's account, justice to myself requires me to state that both Mrs. Marshall and 
myself thought it had been paid and settled long since. Our impression is, that I 
paid the amount to my aunt, the Judge's wife, a short time after the beef was de- 
livered. Whether I paid her in money or some other way, my memory utterly 
fails me. You will please ask the Judge to make enquiry of my aunt, and I shall 
cheerfully abide her impressions. My purpose in making this explanation, is to 
make manifest my total unconsciousnesss of the obligation which seems to have been 
hanging over me for so many years. 1 well remember to have received the beef 
and the mutton. The mutton was not paid for, because of our mutual small ac- 
counts. The charge for Anderson is correct — it had entirely escaped me. 

Respectfully, 

.A. J. MARSHALL/' 

I wish it to be especially noted, that in giving the Judge a credit by the amount 
of the account, $24 15, I distinctly specify the time when his account was de- 
livered to me. 

On the first day of the Superior Court, Tuesday, the 4th of May, the Judge and 
myself, for the first time since the '• adjustment," were brought together. I was at 
the post office in a Crowd, and he rode up and asked for his papers. I purposely 
kept my back turned upon him, and walked off without looking towards him. The 
day previous, Mr. Lee had passed without speaking to me. The Judge had made 
a formal demand for a close of our accounts, and had sent home all the books his 
family had borrowed. Under existing relations, I construed these as acts of final 
separation, and had no inclination to thwart his humor. I determined that if in- 
tercourse was to be restored, it should be on his most unequivocal motion. I saw 
his honor frequently during the court, but no civilities, nor even recognition was 
interchanged. In the mean time, the relations between us seemed to be of great 
and general interest to the community. Frequent and countless enquiries were 
made of me, as to how the matter stood between us. All coneurred with me in 
opinion, that his honor had abandoned his first purpose of doing amends for his 
outrages, and had indicated his wish to peipetuate the breach. Many remarks were 
made both upon his conduct and on his account; remarks for which I am in no re- 
spect responsible. 

On the 18th of May, the following letter from the Judge was received through 
the post office. 

"Oakwood, May 16. 1841. 

Sir : I have looked over the papers transmitted to me a few days ago through 
Mr. Helm. The beef charged in my account was a transaction of the overseer, it 
is not probable, therefore, that Mr?. Scott should have been the channel through 



28 

which payment was made. I have, as requested, conversed with her, and she has 
not the slightest recollection of receiving the money. She, moreover, recollects 
having asked nie some time ago, whether I had paid my subscription to vour pa- 
per, to which I replied that Iliad paid in advance, and amongst other things men- 
tioned the beef which Welch had delivered to you. If Mrs. Marshall and yourself 
still think it was paid for, you may refresh her recollection by mentioning the sum 
paid, and how. and on what occasion it was paid. In looking over mv papers, I 
have come across an account rendered by you to me, on which a balance appears 
due to me. I have no entries on my books of either debits or credits to vou on 
any account, and the transactions to which this account relates, except the office 
lot, entirely escaped my memory, nor can I now say whether the balance lias been 
paid or not. The amount was of course made out after the purchase of the office 
lot, and subsequent to the year 1830, which may give you a (due to the date, and 
aid you in your examination. I can only say that I have not the slightest recol- 
lection of having received any money from you subsequent to that period. You 
can doubtless explain the matter, as you would not have paid so large a sum without 
a voucher. 

I enclose a copy of the account. 

As jegards your charge for ; clerk's lees, I must be allowed to protest against th e 
principle which you assume. I cannot consent to beheld bound to pay all the fees 
charged against me on the books of every clerk in the Commonwealth, unless I 
can produce the bills. They are the legal evidence of the debt, and cannot be re- 
newed ; he who pays them, as in case of a bond, may throw them in the lire. It 
is much more probable, therefore, that a clerk should preserve the bills for fees 
which are not paid, than that the suitor should preserve those which have been dis- 
charged. You take upon yourself to say that I am -a man of system, and can in 
a few minutes, by reference to my papers, ascertain the truth of the case;'" by 
which I understand you to mean that my system is never to pay a clerk's fee with- 
out taking in the tickets, and that I invariably preserve them, so that in a few 
minutes I can produce all I ever paid ; and after having gratuitously attributed this 
System to me, and making it the foundation of your demand, you, in the same 
breath, ask m ? t > depart from it, and thereby lay the foundation of a repieition of the 
demand, if the hills should hereafter turn up: of, indeed, if without finding them, 
you shi uld again, as you now are, be in doubt whether they have been paid or 
not. If these fees have n >t been paid, which is very possible, you are a man of 
leisure, and with little trouble can find them, and thus enable me to persevere in 
the system which you attribute to me. The tax on the seal is probably correct, as 
I do not remember having obtained the seals in person, and therefore the tax was 
probably not paid. As to the fee of the Culpeper clerk, R. E. Scott procured the 
papers, and it is therefore probable, that when he received them he paid the fee* It 
is b< th hi< and my impression that he did. Had you presented the bill when it 



29 

was first placed in your hands, all doubt would probably have been easily removed. 
The matter, therefore, must be enquired into. A year or two ago, Mr. Helm men- 
tioned to me an account which you had placed in his hands for collection. My 
impression is, that he stated the amount, but did not show me the account. I de- 
clined paying it, on the ground that you were in my debt, and heard no more of it. 
If this paper can be found, it may throw some light upon the pending questions. 

Yours, &c., 

JNO. SCOTT. 
A. J. Marshall, Esq." 

The general tone of this letter was decidedly offensive, and indicated a purpose 
to wrangle about small accounts, in which I determined not to indulge him. Al- 
though I knew, from circumstances, that the charge of beef had been settled, yet as 
it had escaped my aunt's recollection, I determined to pay it over again. My claim 
for clerk's fees, ($35,) I believed, and still believe, to be justly due, and unpaid. I 
knew that if the Judge had paid them, he had taken the fee bills in, and could in a 
few minutes produce them. His not finding them among his papers was full con- 
firmation that they were due. Unjust as I thought, and yet think his refusal to pay 
them, I determined to withdraw the claim. I also withdrew the claim for ten doL 
lars, which had been transferred to me by the Cuipeper clerk. Thus I left no mat- 
ter of account unsettled betweeen us, and hoped to close a correspondence which 
seemed to be pressed by the Judge as an opening wedge to further hostilities. Ire- 
plied in a calm business manner, free from irritation. Here is my letter :t 

"May 18, 1841. 

u Sir : Yours of the 16th inst. was handed me from the post office this evening, 
" and I hasten to reply. The matters of account between us are few, and I should 
k ' think easily adjusted. To your charges, I made but one objection, and referred its 
'' decision to my aunt's recollection. She does not confirm my impressions and I 
'' am satisfied to let the matter rest there. Your account is therefore admitted to 
" be correct and I will discharge it. 

« To my account against you, I understand you make but one objection, (to 
" Lightfoot's fee bill,) and intimate " that it must be enquired into." I need not be 
" concerned in this enquiry — as our accounts can be adjusted without its decision- 
'' I withdraw all claim to the disputed item, and request it may be stricken from my 
" account. My claim is properly against Lightfoot's estate, and if their claim for 
" the lost fee bill is well founded, let it be matter of investigation between you 
" and that estate. I ought not, and shall not for such an amount be troubled with 
" it. By striking out this item, and embracing the tax on the four county seals, 
" which you think is a fair charge, my account is made out, and the small differ- 
" ence can be adjusted at Mr. Helm's. 

' fc I read with some surprise the long protest occupying nearly a page of your 
' letter, against the principle on which my charge for the clerk's fees from the year 



30 

'' 1833 to 1835 was rested. 1 presented that account as a memorandum for your- 
' k self, believing you could satisfy yourself from data in your possession, "whether 
.. its items formed matter <>!' just charge, and not lor a moment doubting that if sa 
M tistied in any way* that I had not been compensated for services done at vour in- 
'• stance, you would promptly correct the omission. You object to my calling on 
" \«ni to furnish the evidence of charges in my favor, and as 1 have no other satis- 
" factory means of arriving at the truth, I shall withdraw all claim on the score of 
u the fee bills, and put an end to difficulties on that account. There now remains 
" nothing to be explained or adjusted between us, except the charge of $138 17i 
" winch finding among your papers as a balance due you on an account furnished 
" by myself; you say you have no recollection of its having been paid, and I un- 
" derstand you to require of me an examination of my papers to satisfy you whe- 
u ther this balance has been settled or is yet a subsisting charge against me. 

kt My object is to close or "adjust" subjects of difference; and although you stand 
t* in relation to this $138 17 very much as I do to the aforesaid fee bills, to wit, in 
; ' a state of perfect ignorance of its payment, or its existing "obligations, I shall 
" make no protest against the appeal you make to this only remaining source of light' 
u by which these old affairs can be investigated — the vouchers and receipts of the 
" parties. On turning to my receipts for the year 1830, I found a bundle of paper 3 
" with vour name inscribed, and among them is the account, a copy of which you 
" enclosed me, presenting the balance of $138 17, as due to you. Immediately at 
" the foot," in your hand, is written a receipt in these words: " Sept. 7, 1830, re- 
ceived the above balance of $138 17, Jno. Scott." As was my custom, when 
" I settled with my clients, I gave a full statement to you, for deliberate examina- 
" tion at your leisure, and only omitted to state the payment in full. 

" You will please consider your account as fully admitted, and the item of $10 
u for the Culpeper fee bill, as stricken from mine. You will also consider all claim 
u for the clerk's bill charged by me against you as withdrawn, and Mr. Helm will 
" adjust the balance if against me. 

" Respectfully, &c, 

'•A.J.MARSHALL. 

" P. S. I enclose a few old receipts and memoranda that should properly be 
"■ among your papers. A. J. M." 

Here, 1 supposed; all pecuniary difficulties would be settled. I had fully admit- 
ted his accounts, and freely abandoned the items of mine to which there was any 
exceptions, and I had found a receipt in full for the new charge of $139 16, which 
he had exhumed from among his old papers. I really hoped to be permitted to 
live in peace, although I knew I was doomed to languish the remainder of my for- 
lorn existence under the inextinguishable dislike of his Honour. 

In this I was utterly mistaken. The man who had upon false and frivolous pre- 
texts aimed to degi-ad* m*> before the public, because I would not abandon a friend 






31 

to his malignant vengeance, could readily make a pretext for renewing his assaults ; 
when by such renewal, he hoped not only to prostrate his old enemy, but trusting 
to the fortunes of war, he expected to retrieve the galling humiliation to which I 
had subjected him, in exacting a full, public, and unmeasured apology. Galling to 
him, because he is destitute of that magnanimity, which impels the generous spirit 
to make honourable reparation for acknowledged insult and wrong. 

On a calm survey of my past relations with the Judge, there is nothing in my 
conduct towards him, with which I can reproach myself; unless it is the tenacity 
with which T adhered to him after my good opinion and confidence had been sha- 
ken. For twelve years past, the foibles and faults of his character have been open- 
ing and rising before me. As successive incidents have developed bad qualities 
and their increasing frequency has been charged to increasing age, and consequent 
infirmity — my affection for him has overlooked the bad, and clung to the ac- 
knowledged good traits of his character. I have witnessed with regret, often with 
anger, conduct unworthy of him as a man and a citizen, In the irritation of the 
occasion, I have condemned him freely and harshly, but a returning kindness ha s 
effaced these impressions, and left me attached warmly and sincerely to his interests 
and reputation. I have never been a blind admirer, and have been sensible that 
my perception of the wrong, and sometimes of the ridiculous in his Honor's cha- 
racter, has been to him a source of great irritation and annoyance. On the whole 
much of mutual kindness subsisted between us, and I sincerely wished him happi- 
ness in this life. 

As well as I knew Judge Scott, his course in regard to the nomination of Mr 
Brooke surprised and dissapointed me. I did not dream that he would be so un- 
mindful of the decencies of life as to turn witness and informer in a case where 
he had so much of individual feeling to gratify. I thought that if respect for him- 
self did not, at least respect for the numerous and respectable friends of Mr. Brooke 
men who were his friends too, would restrain him. But when I saw that noth- 
ing could withhold his vengeance — -that all considerations of decency were levelled 
before it, I determined to defend my rights as a citizen, and I do not regret it. 

My forbearance under the insults and violence of the Judge, was the result of 
that abiding affection, which inspite of m) self I still entertained for him. I do not 
regret the respect and kindness with which \ met his outrage then. 

On reviewing my treatment of his apologies after the offence, I cannot blame my- 
self; all that I required from the old man, was an expression of his regret to me for 
his personal injury to me, The admission, " that he was torong — urong from be- 
ginning to end,'''' was no satifaction to me. I knew that as well as he did. I there- 
fore returned it upon him in contemptuous derision. But when he again appealed to 
me, and in sincerity and sorrow expressed his regret, and his wish for a return of our 
former relations, I met him promptly, with a congenial spirit, " implacability formed 
no feature of my character.'''' True, 1 showed some jealousy on reading the Judge's 
note appended to the correspondence, ;nu\ out of abundant caution, k - noted it a Utile 
too.'''' 



32 

In further review. I attach no blame to myself for the subsequent communications 
between us. The Judge and Robert Lee, from causes which tliev did not assign, vi- 
olated the spirit of the •* adjustment" between us, and terminated all intercourse. This 
was their privilege, and it was not for me to thwart their humours. Thi Judge de- 
sired to settle little pecuniary accounts between us, ami in his second Letter was un- 
disguised in his purpose to offend me. 1 humoured him in his \\ ish, exce] i as lo the 
quarrel. In my reply, I overlook his offensive letter, and treat r as matter 

of business. For the sake of peace, [abandon even my just rights, and give him 
every satisfaction in my power; and this brings me to the next act of the drama. 



CHAPTER VII. 

The Judge iu great alarm sues for peace, out lias not magnanimity to retract his 

torongs. 

The Judge rinding me content to let matters rest, that I could not be provoked in- 
to a renewal of the quarrel, could no longer bridle his violent passions. On the 5th 
of June, he boiled over, and attacked me in a letter of sixteen manuscript pages ! ! 
In this letter, he assures me that it is intended for my own eye alone. That it will be 
my own fault if it becomes public ; hut it seems that he retained a copy, and left it 
with his son Robert; and before I received it a gentleman, who had known of its 
existence for some time, enquired of me, what answer, if any, 1 had returned to it. 
I found from others, thai its nature was known generally, so that if I had wished to 
indulge the dignified humour of the Judge, in playing this solltare game of whisper- 
ed malignity, to which his Honour was to be the only party and witness^ I should 
have been again deceived by him. The same Pnnic faith which had enabled him 
through my active agency, to regain his footing in public opinion after his outrages, 
again marked his purpose. His proposition (for it amounts to a proposition i was 
" keep this slanderous and insulting letter a secret between you and me — no one will 
know it unless by your own acts," At the same time, he had made it known to 
such of our common acquaintance as he pleased, and his own gigling family were 
to lie possessed <>!' it. 

On the receipt of this most extraordinary production in which the Judge, after- 
cool reflection, deliberately repeats the outrage of the of March, and as i\w as 

practicable resumes the enviable position he then occupied; 1 saw that further for- 
bearance on my part would be lam, irss. and only provoke further insult, i saw that 
my prostration in this community was a matter determined upon. 1 knew my 
enemy, and as matter of retribution as well as safety. I determined, painful as ;\ is, 
to bring him and his motives and his unworthy means of assault, before the bar of 
public opinion. To know him and understand his motive.-, i., to defeat his: ob- 



33 

'ects and defend myself — it is to draw his fangs and render him impotent for evil. 
I claim no sympathy for wrongs done to me more than would be extended to any 
other individual — the public have no greater interest in my oppressions ; but in 
the conduct and character of their Judge' — of the man on whom the confidence of 
the Legislature has cast the execution of justice, the public have an interest — a 
deep and an abiding interest. A Judge should command the respect and confi- 
dence of the citizens. They must not only confide in his ability and learning, but 
in his uprightness and elevated sense of justice. It is the right of the citizen to 
require the judicial chair to be adorned by individual worth and integrity. It is the 
duty of the Legislature to purge the bench of incumbents who degrade the office by 
vices such as Judge Scott has disclosed. In the foregoing pages 1 have given a full 
narrative of the origin and progress of this controversy. The reader will be ena- 
bled to correct the mis-statements found in the following letter. But as it asserts 
much that requires explanation, I have adopted the plan of appending notes of cor- 
rection and explanation, so that my defence and the accusation will be presented in 
one view. I shall make no farther remark about this letter, except that its gross and 
abusive style leaves me at perfect liberty to select my own mode of reply, unres- 
trained by any considerations except of self-respect, and respect for the feelings of 
my readers. I wish it borne in mind that the "Great Western" was written on 
the 6th of June, days after the receipt of my business letter of the May- 
It was then kept till the 20th of June, on which day an insulting postscript was added 
and it was put in the office, showing every circumstance of deliberate well consid- 
ered malice. The reader will find it in the appendix. 

On hearing of my determination to publish his whole conduct, and his letter, 
especially the last, Judge Scott was for the first time seized with a desire for peace. 
He had not the magnanimity to withdraw his insults and make attonement, but 
every influence was brought to bear upon my purpose of publication. My friends 
and relations were induced to intercede. I was importuned, coaxed and threatened, 
but my treatment had been such that I was deeply offended, and obstinately resol- 
ved on his exposure. 

The conduct of Robert Scott in this controversy tended to aggravate and further 
outrage my feelings. On the evening of his return from Richmond (it was on the 
night of the famous Thursday in March) Richards Payne, fearing a breach between 
Robert and myself, sought him out and gave him a full and candid history of that 
scene. Robert was much disturbed, and said that a breach between myself and 
him, was impossible. But he has no strength to oppose the blighting mastery of 
his father's imperious temper. In past time, it has had power to control and direct 
every action of his life, and I was not surprised that his kindness to me yielded 
submissive to its overshadowing influence. He soon assumed a cold reserve in his 
deportment towards me. Instead of interceding and propitiating his father's feel- 
ings, and redoubling his own kindness to me, he ministered to that morbid and 
unreasonable temper, and became its servile tool of aggression. A kind word or a 



34 

kindness of manner on the part of Robert Scott towards me, and his father's out- 
rages would have been passed to the account of that bad temper, which the inflic- 
tions of time, have rendered uncontrolable. I have reason to believe that my contin- 
ued forbearance to the father, was attributed to personal fear of the son. His reserve 
of manner increased in proportion as I retired before his father's efforts to renew 
and fasten a quarrel upon me ; and at last I ascertained that Mr. Robert Scott had 
employed himself in taking second-hand certificates to prove upon me a charge of 
base falsehood, which his father had alledged against me. Thus goaded and per- 
secuted by insults and wrongs, my resolution was formed, and 1 prepared the fore- 
going pages for publication. 

The following correspondence explains itself, and took place at this stage of 

things : 

"Warrentox, July 19th, 1841. 
" .). J. Marshall, Esq. 

w Dear Sin : The undersigned, the mutual friends of the parties, view with senti- 

u ments of unfeigned regret the unhappy controversy now in progress between your- 

u self ami the Hon. John Scott. They think they would he false to the feelings of 

" friendship a.ul regard, which they sincerely entertain towards each of you, and 

" criminally regardless of the peace and quiet, not only of yourselves, but of your 

" numerous relatives, connexions and friends, if they did not make an effort to arrest 

•• its further progress, and accomplish its amicable adjustment. With a view to a 

*' result so desirable, and to effect it in a manner fair and equal upon both sides, 

" the undersigned, without consultation with either party, as the suggestion of their 

u most anxious reflections upon the subject, submit the following proposition : That 

" each party shall select a disinterested gentleman, and that to their decision the 

u whole controversy, together with all that has passed between you up to the 

" present time touching it, shall be submitted, and in the event of their disagreeing 

" they have power to have an umpire — and that y6u mutually agree to abide the 

' decision of these gentlemen or their umpire, and make it final between you. 

" Please answer this at your earliest convenience and let us know your determina- 

u tion. 

u Very sincerely and truly your friends, 

« SAML. CHILTON, 

"THOS.T. WITHERS, 

« RICHARDS TAYNE." 

To which I promptly replied as foil ,-ws : 

« Ji-lv 19th, 1841. 

" Gentlemen: I fully appreciate the kindness manifested towards me in your 
" friendly wish to mediate between Judge Scott and myself, in our present unplea- 
u sant relations. My determination to reject your well intentioned proposition, 
u arises from no want of regard to the source from whence it comes, nor does it 



35 

u proceed from a carelessness of the peace of society, for the peace and quiet of 
'• mv numerous friends, connexions, and relations, or that of my own family, to 
" which you refer ; but it arises from the nature of the proposition itself, which I am 
" sure you have not fully considered. You propose to refer the differences between 
" the Judge and myself, to the arbitrament of mutual friends, whose award is to be 
" final between us. What is at this time that difference ? You are familiar with 
" the treatment I received from the Judge, at a public meeting, in March last, with 
" its subsequent adjustment, by a public acknowledgment that he was '•'•wrong from 
6 beginning to end!'''' and an expression of his earnest wish to have our former 
" relations of friendship restored. You are also aware that the Judge did not carry 
" out his purpose of conciliation, but adopted a course which widened and perpet- 
" uated the breach between us. You are aware, that on the 20th of June, he re- 
" opened hostilities with me, and in a letter of great length, recalled every apology 
" and every concession he had formerly made — and in the most insulting and abu- 
u sive language, charged me with every odious and disgraceful attribute that can 
" deform the human character. The effect of your proposition is, that I shall refer 
" these charges to an arbitrament, and let their truth or falsehood be passed upon — 
' ; that I must condescend to defend myself against such charges, and am, by con- 
1 sequence to be placed on trial. You will excuse me gentlemen from suchdegra- 
'• dation. Respect for you alone restrains me from the expression of those strong 
" feelings which the proposition excites. I know the kindness of your purpose 
" and that offence is far from your intention, but I must say to you, that such a 
" proposition is offensive. 

" In conclusion, I have to say that I have nothing to refer. If any thing in my 
" conduct has been wrong, and you, or either of you, will point it oul, I shall ex- 
" amine it, and am willing to be counselled ; but I must choose my own tribunal 
" to pass upon opprobrious and insulting charges detracting from my character as 
" a man, and^a citizen. With every respect and kindness, gentlemen, 

" I am yours, &.c, 

"A. J. MARSHALL. 

" Samuel Chilton, 

« T. T. Withers, 

" Richards Payne, Esquires." 

The Judge replied as follows : 

« Warrenton, July 19, 1841. 
" To Messrs. Samuel Chilton, Thomas T. Withers and Richards Payne. 

" Gentlemen : I justly appreciate the motives which have dictated your letter to 
" me of this morning. A discussion before the public with Mr. Marshall, of our 
" criminations and recriminations, is the last thing I expected or desire. 3STo man 
ki is better satisfied than I am, that however such an exhibition may amuse the in- 
" different or gratify enemies, it cannot be otherwise than painful to friends and in- 



36 

"jurious to the parties, whichever may gain the victory. With this opinion I can- 
u not refuse to accede to your proposal, ' each party shall select a disinterested 
u gentleman, and that, to their decision, the whole controversy, emhracing all that 
'• has passed between us, op to the present time touching it, shall be submitted; 
u ami, in the event of their disagreement, they have power to select an umpire, and 
u that we mutually agree to abide the decision of those gentlemen, and make itiinal 
u between us.' When ] shall be notified of the acceptance of this proposal by 
8 Mr. M., 1 shall be prepared to name the referee on my part. 

u Very respectfully yours, 

"JOHN SCOTT." 

After this attempt, and many others, hud failed, my friend and kinsman, Dr. Clark- 
son, then called on me to know if ] would allow him to withdraw the last offensive 
letter, (" the Great Western") and thus terminate the affair. I asked if he would 
be empowered to withdraw the degrading accusations it contained? He replied, that 
a withdrawal of the letter would be a withdrawal of its offensive contents. I told 
him that such a point could not be left to implication — that the proposition to 
withdraw must come direct from Judge Scott, and be expressly on the bat is of his 
withdrawing his odious and unfounded charges. That I only required of the Judge 
to say, that he was conscious of having done me injustice in that letter, and desired 
to withdraw it. 

Whilst this reasonable requirement was under consideration, my uncle, Mr. Jas. 
Marshall, who had given me my education, and has ever extended to me a parental 
affection, interceded to stay my publication. His reasoning and his Irishes, I could 
not resist. I yielded, and thus relieved the Judge for the present. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

Reasons for my defence of Martin P. Brooke, and the extent of my responsibility 

defined. 

I have now reached the greatest sin of my whole life — in the eye of the Judge 
and his son — Martin P. Brooke's first ■pamphlet! These gentlemen, who, as I 
have shown, have had no limit to their aggressions, both upon me and Martin 
Brooke, have made a wonderful outcry because we have met them in the spiri* 
in which they pursue us. It behoves me to define the extent of my responsibility 
for writing that pamphlet, and to justify myself for aiding Mr. Brooke at all in re- 
gard to it. The Messrs. Scotts have chosen to cast the entire responsibility upon 
my shoulders, and to treat Mr. Brooke as a cipher, except so far as to asperse both 
of us with charges of slanderous malignity. This is in keeping with their whole 
previous course towards Mr. Brooke. Although it suits than, to lump their adveria- 



37 

ries, it subserves truth and justice, that each be held responsible, to the extent only 
of his own acts. 

My justification, in writing Mr. Brooke's defence, rests in the necessity which 
the Messrs. Scott's had created for that defence ; and in my perfect consciousness 
of his innocence, and their unrelenting oppression. It will not be denied that Judge 
Scott and his son had arraigned Mr. Brooke before the public, on charges deeply 
affecting his moral character, and his respectability as a man. They had not only 
done this, but they announced their purpose to prostrate him on those charges, if he 
should have the temerity to permit his friends and neighbors to run him for the 
Legislature. Mr. Brooke was forced to defend himself against their violence and 
injustice. Mr. Brooke, like ninety-nine out of a hundred of his fellow-citizens, be- 
ing unaccustomed to writing, was forced to seek aid and council. And to whom 
would he most naturally apply ? I was his near kinsman — I had been his friend 
and intimate for a period of more than twenty years ; I had always received at his 
h t nds manifestations of his affection and sympathy ; besides this, I had been the 
means myself of disseminating the unjust and vindictive charges of his enemies, by 
exhibiting their letters to me, in which these odious charges were, in part, incor- 
porated. It was under these circumstances that I gave my aid to Mr. Brooke, to 
defend him against a power, which, to this day, has never been successfully resisted 
in this county. He was overwhelmed by powerful adversaries — his character de- 
famed and denounced ; I knew him to be innocent, and to be the victim of their ob- 
durate hatred ; he asked my aid to save him, and I extended it to him. There are 
persons who blame me for this — who say, no matter how unjustly Brooke was as- 
sailed, I ought to have kept aloof. Had Judge Scott set fire to Brooke's corn-field, 
the same persons would, doubtless have blamed me for aiding to extinguish the 
flames. He should have had my assistance in the latter case, and inasmuch as 
character is more important than corn, I could not, consistently, withhold assist- 
ance when his good name was endangered, even if Judge Scott was the calumnia- 
tor. This was, in brief, my reason. 

How far I am responsible for the statements and purposes of the pamphlet, is 
also a question of interest to me. I refer only to moral responsibility. If there 
were any statements made in that pamphlet, which, at the time of making them, I 
knew or believed to be untrue, I have been guilty of a deep moral crime in giving 
them utterance. My conscience acquits me of all such crime. There are many 
statements therein made, of the truth of which, I had no personal knowledge; but 
they were made on the knowledge of Mr. Brooke, and on evidence which author- 
ized their insertion. They were made in the name of Mr. Brooke, and under his 
responsible signature. These are his charges, and whether he can sustain them 
or not, is a question for others to decide, who may read his rejoinder. After per- 
secuting him for nearly two generations — (I believe Malthus estimates seven years 
as a generation of man, and the Judge has been contending with Mr. Brooke about 
12 years,) the effort to sink hirudin this controversy as unworthy of notice, and hold 
another responsible for his acts, is supremely ridiculous. 



38 

Not holding myself responsible for the charges which Mr. Brooke has brought 
against the Judge, any farther than above explained, I shall not mix myself up in 
their defence here, but leave them to be sustained by Mr. Brooke under his own 
name. I will only correct one intentional error which pervades both Judge Scott's, 
and Robert Scott's pamphlets. 

These gentlemen persist in representing me as Mr. Brooke's lawyer and adviser 
throughout the long period of negothtion, which preceded their compromise in 
1833. This is an intentional misstatement — for the very correspondence which the 
Judge copies into his pamphlet, broadly shows that Mr. Tyler was his counsel solely 
relied on. The Judge knew well that I was, during that whole period, looked upon 
by Brooke as opposed to himself, and favorably inclined to the Judge. The cor- 
respondence of Mr. Brooke, riled in the clerk's office by the Judge, asserts the 
broad ground u that he can take no step without the advice of Mr. Tyler, who has 
been his counsel from the beginning." Judge Scott knows well that I occupied a 
ground of sturdy neutrality, and was, thereby, enabled to keep up some prospect of 
an amicable adjustment between them. If the reader will turn to the Judge's long 
letter — "The GreatWestern" — he will there find me charged with having been 
Brooke's "bitter reviler;" and Robert Scott adopts the same expression i.i his 
letter of June 23d, 1833. Why have these gentlemen shifted their ground ? The 
facts were the same then and now, the same letters have always been in their hands, 
and always testified to the same effect. Why then have they taken conflicting po- 
sitions ? Truth is uniform and consistent, ever the same, and ever glorious. 

My narrative is now ended. If I have done Judge Scott injustice, in the forgoing 
pages, lam unconscious of it. Such has not been my design. If my feelings have 
sometimes prompted the use of language, which the disparity of age renders unfit- 
ting from me to Judge Scott, my excuse must be found in the great, the deep, the 
unusual outrage of his treatment ; and the wide spraading evil to all my relations 
with life, which his vengeful wrath has brought upon me. I could have avoided all 
this, if I had retired from the contest, and abandoned Mr. Brooke as soon as I dis- 
covered that Judge Scott bore down upon him, with the undisguised purpose of 
destroying his character, and blasting him in the public estimation. I knew all the 
consequences — I knew that he who stayed the arm of his vengeance, would surely 
share the blow. Prudence, therefore — no, timidity, unworthy fear, dictated the 
abandonment of my kinsman. I could have found safety or immunity, in a dastardly 
retreat; but could I find in such safety, my own self-respect, or an improving con- 
science ! did I think Martin Brooke a bad man, and deserving of the moral annihi- 
lation his enemy had prepared for him ? Had he no claims upon me for aid and 
defence? I did not abandon him, and the dart which was forged for his destruc- 
tion, has been hurled, with savage wrath, at my devoted head. 

In regard to Robert Scott, he has no business in this horrid controversy. Self- 
conceit, pride, arrogance, but more than all, parental influence, have over matched 
the promptings of really a good heart. He possesses the elements of a good char- 



39 

acter, and if discharged from the bondage in which the evil passions of his father 
hold him, his life would be happy and useful, probably distinguished. His career 
before the public, has besn one of unbroken success ; he has been intoxicated by 
his own and his father's reputation, and prompted by that father's passions, and obe- 
dient to his will, Robert Scott, in disregard of justice, has united in the scheme of 
my oppression and ruin. Robert Scott knows me well, and well knows the injus- 
tice he has done me. It is with a sorrowful heart that I defend myself against his 
blows — blows, which he ought never to have aimed, and which he never would 
have struck, but for the slavish obedience which that bad old man, the Judge, ex- 
acts from all his children. Self-preservation impels me to repel his ungenerous and 
unjust attack — self-respect will repress a feeling of puling regret, which, inspite of 
my wrongs, lingers with me. He reposes on a bed of his father's making— bad 
passions, and piercing uutruth, constitute his unhappy couch. His father has been 
his seedsman — his harvest will be bitterness and mortification. He has sowed to 
the wind, and must reap the whirlwind. This storm may pass over, and leave him 
a wiser and better man; his vanity and arrogance maybe humbled, but above all, it 
may teach him to resist the promptings of his father, when justice and truth, ai>d good 
feelings, are to be violated. I shall close what I have to say, in defence of my con- 
ductj and devote a few pages to an examination of Robert Scott's attack upon me. 



CHAPTER IX. 

To Robert E. Scott. 

Having, in the preceding pages, traced with a pencil of truth, from its source 
down to the present time, the history of your father's controversy with me — a his- 
tory which your father and yourself have constrained me to publish, in defence of 
my own character, and for the preservation of that indulgent and distinguished kind- 
ness, which the people of my native county have always evidenced towards me, 
it now becomes my painful duty to turn upon you, upon > your conduct, and your 
publication, the scrutiny of a calm and unimpass-ioned examination. Do not flat- 
ter yourself with the hope, that I shall follow the impulse of indignant passion 
which your deliberate injustice, and your unworthy and personal abuse, are calcu- 
lated to inspire, and be thus led to indulge in bitter invective, and personal crimina- 
tion. Violence should never be the hand-maid of truth, and for my own peace of 
life, I suppress and banish that bitterness of heart, which is the parent spring of 
your invective. 

Your position in this controversy has not been of your own chosing — you have 
not been allowed to write your own pamphlet— and humiliating as the fact may be, 
you have not been permitted to correct the most glaring misstatements, to which 



40 

your name has been appended. Your father has dragged yon into this controversy- 
He has taught you, from early infancy, the most abject submission to his will. 
This will is, with you, paramount to all moral law — and if obedience to his 
will, and slavish conformity to his tyrannical humors, form any palliation for the 
deliberate misstatements and misrepresentations, which lam now about to expose, 
you will stand forth eminently justified. Although, to be pittied, you cannot be 
excused in your departure from truth, and your malignant attacks on your adver- 
saries, on such a pretext, as obedience to your father's will ; men of your intelli- 
gence, and of your age, (34) cannot shelter under even a father's name — they are 
responsible to a high moral law — they must and will be h Id to respect, beyond 
all other obligations, "Justice and Truth." 

The first and leading position, which your father seeks to establish, in both his 
own and your address, is the total insignificance of Martin P. Brooke, and the sor- 
did and corrupt motive which has influenced my connexion, and my defence of 
him. The second position (and of equal necessity to each of you in your defence) 
is that I am false, treacherous, vindictive, and cowardly. If these positions can be 
successfully maintained, your father thinks that accusations from such a source will 
fall harmless and despised. He is an ingenious lawyer and knows well how to play 
upon the human heart, and conu*ol opinion. It is, therefore, the great scheme of 
his pamphlet, to discredit Mr. Brooke and myself, and cover each of us with oblo- 
quy and contempt. 

In prosecuting this scheme of degradation, he has made you to look back into 
my past life, and drag into review a scene, the agitating recurrence to which, he 
ought, in mercy to your own cousins and your aunt, never to have made. The un- 
just and degrading impression, which you seek to make against me, compels me to 
disclose that entire transaction. Mine is not the fault, and if the blush of shame, 
and the pangs of grief are revived, and caused to mantle to the cheeks of your most 
highly respected relations, let them look to you, and your father, as solely respon- 
sible: for you have imposed on me the ungracious necessity. 

In pursuance of this scheme of deliberate detraction, and to mark my character 
as utterly contemptible, you make, at an early point in your pamphlet, the follow- 
ing statement, which I transcribe entire, that no injustice may be done you : 

" Amongst the hearsay certifiers, who are paraded in the pamphlet, will be found 
" the name of A. J. Marshall. Now, I must protest against having this case judged 
" by his estimate of what true spirit requires. He once had a horsewhip applied, 
" in a no very friendly manner, upon his shoulders on a race field, and by the 
" hands of one whom his slanderous tongue had traduced, and who, in size and 
u physical strength, was his inferior. He suffered the insult to remain, unredress- 
" ed, tor a long time, until, at last, goaded to desperation, he screwed himself up to 
" make a cowardly attack upon his adversary, in the dark, from a concealed posi- 



41 

" tion, with a bludgeon ; and, on a subsequent occasion, tamely permitted the 
" ' damri'd puppy* 1 to be applied to him, injuriously, by another." 

How, Mr. Robert Scott, could you publish so unjust and wicked a statement, of 
an anair in which you so warmly and deeply participated, and with every detail of 
which you were so familiar, having been an eye-witness and an actor!!! If 
truth could not restrain, the shame of this overwhelming exposure ought to have 
suppressed this unjust and malignant defamation. I must again deprecate the pain 
I shall give to a most worthy family. 

In the fall of 1830, a certain Jno. Scott Peyton, a nephew of the Judge, and 
first cousin of Robert Scott, was in the habit of visiting at my house, and was al- 
ways received with courtesy and hospitality. He had rendered himself obnoxious 
to sundry young ladies, connexions of mine, to one of whom he desired to pay his 
addresses. He visited Alexandria, on this interesting pursuit, and there he was met 
with so much coldness, and, in fact, repulsed with such decision, as greatly to vex 
and mortify him. Panting for vengeance, and knowing that an outrage upon me 
would effectually reach the bosom he wished to pain, this accomplished cavalier 
formed the design of attacking me, and, as he has often boasted, bought a horse- 
whip in Alexandria, with which he intended, as he said, to disgrace the nephew of 
Chief Justice Marshall ! A few days prior to this he had dined at my table, and I 
had not the slightest knowledge of having given him offence. 

Mr. Peyton returned to Warrenton, and repaired to the race-ground, with the 
design of there executing his purpose. I met him in the morning, and we inter- 
changed the usual courteous salutations. He had then disclosed his purpose to 
but one gentleman. We passed each other on the race-course repeatedly during 
the day, whilst I was unincumbered and able to defend myself. Towards evening, 
when the race was over, and I had taken my wife's little brother before me, Pey_ 
ton beckoned me out of a crowd of friends, and we rode apart. His manner ivas 
hurried and confused, and he asked of me some explanation. Seeing him much 
agitated, I replied to him calmly, that I was then on my way to Warrenton ; and 



* The allusion here is to a squabble between Mr. Ward and myself, at a warrant trial. I 
warranted him for some trifle, and the magistrate decided in my favor. He lost his temper, and 
began to abuse me. I was unprepaied to attack him, and could not have touched him ; had I 
have tried, we must have been interrupted. Because I did not bluster and kick up an empty- 
row before the magistrate, with an unreasonable and angry man, the Judge, an old man, one ap- 
pointed by law to preserve peace and order, has, at this late day (10 years after,) ripped up this 
old affair, and paraded it against me as an instance of cowardice. It is exactly such occasions 
as this, where the Judge exhibits his courage. He threw a book at Mr. Moore, in the pre- 
sence of the court ! He struck the Hon. Charles Fenton Mercer, in a crowded dining 
room? He tried " to pull my d — d nose, by God," in a public meeting! A well attended war- 
rant trial would be a chosen theatre with him, for an abortive row. On all such occasions hie 
Honor makes it a point to become " a demnition savage lambdas Mantillini would say. 
6 



42 

that after dinner I would meet him at the tavern, when I could doubtless explain 
all matters of offence. To this unsuspecting proposition, he said, hurriedly, Hhen 
there. wse for me," and struck me with his whip. My horse took 

fright, and it required my undivided strength to hold the horse and save the little 
boy from harm. As soon as I could recover, 1 handed the little l< How over to a 
friend, and Blipt to the ground to get a stone, (for I was entirely defenceless.) 
Meantime, great confusion arose ; men and horses were interposed, and present 
veni!vaiicc became impracticable. 

In a moment Peyton's whole dastardly scheme Hashed upon my mind. He 
expected me to be infuriated and outrageous in pursuit of vengeance ; and that 
my violence and vain threats would awaken some good natured justice oi the 
peace, who, in the discharge of his duty, would bind us both over to keep the 
peace. I immediately changed my manner. I quietly re-mounted my horse — took the 
little boy before me, and held a conversation of ten or fifteen minutes with Dr. 
James on the subject of our next election. I determined that nothing in my con- 
duct should furnish a pretext for the prevention of some signal punishment 1 
intended to inflict. 

On my way to town, you, Mr. Robert Scott ! who had witnessed the whole 
scene, rode by my side, and in a low voice, I told you of my purpose to call the 
dastard to an account in the usual way, and requested you to call at my office after 
dinner. You replied that I must act in the matter on full reflection, and that you 
would meet me after dinner. On my return home, I found my family under much 
excitement, and my wife in a state of great danger. (Our second child was born 
about two weeks after this.) I calmed her fears by giving her most solemn assu- 
rances that I would remain quiet until all danger to her had passed. After dinner 
I met vou, Mr. Robert E. Scott, and on the same evening, or the next morning, your 
father, then Attorney of the Commonwealth, came to see me, as did also the late 
Nathaniel Tyler, and other gentlemen. There was but one opinion expressed 
by all of you. The idea of treating Peyton like a gentleman, was hooted at; and 
by this competent advisement, my course was shaped. I determined to bide my 
time, till danger to my wife had passed, and pick my opportunity when free from 
interruption, I might visit that heavy, condign personal punishment upon him, which 
his infamous conduct called for. I was confirmed in this purpose by the late 
Robert I. Taylor, of Alexandria, my wife's father, who advised, in addition, that 
I should beat him to his bed for six weeks, and when he recovered, beat him back 
again. 

It is well known to you that a long time elapsed before Peyton gave me an op- 
portunity to accomplish this well-considered purpose. And when I succeeded, it 
was with your aid, your contrivance, and your active participation, that I effected 
it. Our great fear was, that I might be interrupted and prevented from inflicting a 
full and severe beating. You closed the door, and with my friends, Martin With" 



43 

ers, Samuel Chilton, and John F. Smith, stood prepared to keep off the crowd. 
Thus I was left alone with him in a passage. I walked up to him, and when his 
face was turned towards me, struck him in the face with a stick, which you had 
examined and advised me to use. I was fearful of injuring him ; and my blow, 
although it afterwards did him great injury, was so gentle as only to stagger him. 
I seized him by the collar, and dragging him to the floor, with my foot upon his 
neck, I inflicted on him a chastisement which confined him to his bed for some 
weeks. The humanity of Dr. Withers at length rescued him. He pushed you 
from the door, and coming up to me, asked me to desist. 

With the purpose of prejudicing my acts and statements, you and your father 
cast back upon this old and forgotten transaction, and now characterize it as cow- 
ardly and disgraceful. If it was cowardly, and unworthy, why did you aid, and 
advise, and contrive to effect it ? You can not have forgotten the scene between 
Scott Peyton and your father after his recovery. You, at the time, told me and 
others of it. I have been reminded of it by friends to whom you also repeated it. 
You told us, that when Scott Peyton first met your father after his beating, he began 
to abuse me for my cowardly attack. « Sit down Scott," said the Judge, and "hear 
« what I We to say. You dined at Mr. Marshall's house— in a week's time you 
" met him on the race-field— he was unconscious of having offended you. At first 
" you interchanged the ordinary civilities. You passed him often on the field— 
" when he has a child before him, and perfectly defenceless, you undertake to de- 
" grade him with a horse-whip; you keep out of his way for some weeks ; and 
_ finally he walks up to you, (you being armed with two pistols and a dirk,) and 
" strikes you with a stick in the face, and succeeds in cowhiding you well. Now, 
" I ask you who acted like the coward ? 

Such was your participation in a scene, which, alter a lapse of more than eleven 
years, in violation of the feelings of your cousins, and in outrage of those of 
your aged and afflicted aunt, you have raked from the rubbish of time, vainly hop- 
ing to decry and defame me. Such were your father's opinions at the time, re- 
ported by yourself, and remembered by numbers of yoiu friends. Why disturb 
the unanimous judgment of society, openly expressed on that act, and undertake at 
this late day to revise and reverse it ? Is it manly— is it honest to seek my destruc- 
tion by such means as suppression of excusatory matter, distortion and misstatement? 
This deliberate and intentional misrepresentation, having for its object the most 
odious defamation, fell upon the community in which we both reside, with a shock 
of disappointment and mortification. Men who had obstinately closed their minds 
to conviction, when Martin Brooke demonstrated your wilful misstatements in 
! regard to him, were now forced to admit that you could be false, when controlled 
I by your father in malice and hatred. This attempted defamation, Mr. Robert Scott, 
was not intended for home consumption — its untruth was too generally known. 
Your father had been arraigned on grave charges of fraud and embezzlement by 
M. P. Brooke, and you well knew they had been made to ring through the wids 



14 

,i of thia Commonwealth. These charges were heard in places where Brooke 
and myself were unknown. And your answer was intended to palsy die arm 
which dealt the Mow.* 

"Gr.\Ti.i.MEN : You were among the kind friends who aided me some time ago 
>• to get -in opportunity to chastise Scott Peyton. Will you tax your memory so 
•• jar as to state what part Mr. Robert E. Scott took on that occasion? Was he pre - 
M sent, aiding, contriving and assisting to prevent interruption? A brief answer to 
u these poiuts will much oblige your friend, 

" A. J. MARSHALL. 

M To John F. Smith, and Martin Withers." 

"I think it best in reply to your questions, to make a simple statement. You 
" called at my store after supper, and asked me to go with you to the tavern. 
u You told me of your purpose to attack Scott Peyton, and asked me to be present 
" for the purpose of aiding to keep off the crowd. You told me that Samuel Chil- 
" ton and Robert E. Scott, and perhaps others, were there with the same view, 
44 and that you would rather die than be interrupted before you had given him a 
" severe beating. We proceeded to the tavern, and there I remained for perhaps an 
" hour or more, waiting till you got the opportunity. I saw Samuel Chilton, Dr. 
" Withers, Mr. Robert Scott, and Martin. Withers, who, from their motions, I thought 
" were engaged in the same business. I said nothing to Mr. Scott, and cannot 
" speak of his purposes, except from his actions. When you attacked Mr. Pey- 
" ton, we all, Mr. Scott amongst the rest, stood about the doors of the passage 
" and I have always understood that there was one common purpose. Mr. Scott 
'' was, I think, on the ground from the time I got there till the affair ended. 

k ' Very respectfully, 

"J. F. SMITH." 



* That the foregoing is an unvarnished statement of "the Scott Peyton ali'dir,'' I avouch the 
whole country. I call on Robert Scott himself to prove it. On the night it took pb.ee, and a 
few minutes afterwards, Robert Scott ran into a room, where many of our acquaintances were 
sitting, aaidtold all about it. I will name some of the gentlemen, for one of them has recently 
iemindorl me of the circumstance: John Web Tyler, Humphry B. Powell, Alexander S. Tid- 
ball, Col. Gibson, Jones Green, John Baker. (Not a bad party, this.) And perhaps others were 
in the room. I avouch any one of these gentlemen for the truth of my statement. Robert Scott 
will not deny it; the Judge, however, having taken his position, would swear the horns off of a 
Billy goat in its support. I introduce the certificate of Martin Withers, and John F. Smith, who 
assisted Robert Scott on that occasion. And Dr. T. T. Withers, (now in Florida.) has often 
«aid that he pulled Robert Scott from the door, when he came up and asked me t<J desist. 

I have received a reply from Mr. Samuel Chilton on the same point. He does not confirm the 
recollection of John F. Smith and Martin Withers ; but it is manifest that his memory is not to 
be relied on, because he has forgotten that John F. Smith was present at the scene. It would be 
truly wonderful if there was no discrepancy in the memory of witnesses to so ancient a transac- 
tion. If Robert Scott was not present, then have I been deceived, as well as his most intimate 
friends and connexions. But I have not a doubt that he was present, acting, advisinj, and con- 
triving, as the foregoing letters prove. 



45 

k ' Sir : in reply to your enquiry, I have to say, that I became aware of your pur- 
" pose to chastise Scott Peyton a short time (not exceeding a half hour) before you 
" executed it. I stood in the passage, and held the door on that side, and prevented 
" intrusion. When I thought you had whipped him sufficiently, I turned the bolt, 
" and Dr. Withers came up and asked you to desist. I can say nothing of Mr- 
" R. E. Scott's agency in the affair. He was among the first that I saw in the crowd 
a after the door was opened. 

"MARTIN WITHERS." 



CHAPTER X. 

Sundry Refutations — " The Bribe." 

To render me odious and contemptible, you have ascribed avarice' to me, and 
placed my friendship for Mr. Brooke to that account. This charge is not intended 
for home use either. In proof, you mention the fact, that Mr. Brooke, two years 
ago, gave a negro* boy, about four years old, to my little son ; and at a more recent 
date, gave my wife a third-hand barouche ! ! This wonderful bounty of a kinsman 
who has no child of his own, towards the child of his friend, you parade before 
the world as evidence of my corruption ! In the same connection, having thus 
laid the ground-work, you insist upon it, that from this most sordid motive, I have 
brought Martin Brooke forward, and am urging him on the county as a candidate. 
Your language is, " who but the hair-brained writer, (meaning me,) ever dreamed 



* I may as well disclose the history of this important nsgro business at once, for Judge Scott 
does not mean that I shall have any private history at all. In nosing about my affairs, the old 
fellow has found one or two mare's nests, and this is one. Robert Scott ought to have set him 
right, but the old man is of that humor, that his family dare not contradict him ; and he is so pig- 
headed that he always has facts very much his own way . 

Some two or three years ago, my wife had six or seven hundred dollars given to her by her 
father. She wished to buy a servant girl ; and Martin Brooke had a woman with two children 
who suited. He agreed to let her have the woman and one child for the money. Mrs. Marshall 
consulted Richards Payne, her trustee, and Robert E. Scott, her friend, who both advised her 
to make the investment. She had not money enough to buy both children, and Mis. Brooke, 
(Martin's wife) gave the other child, then about four years old, to my little son. Some months 
afterwards, I had an opportunity of buying some woodland adjoining us, and wi? rescinded the 
bargain about the woman. My little boy did not chose to be thus choused, and claimed his pre- 
sent — and the negro boy was conveyed to Richards Payne for his benefit, I was not a little sur- 
prised to see this simple affair, with the details of which the Judge and his whole family are well 
acquainted, paraded ae evidence of my base corruption! 



46 

u of proposing such a creature for the Legislature? Who^ but one blinded by the 
" sordid passion of avarice, could have seriously thought of passing such an indig- 
" nity on the county" 

Now, itigjWell known to both you and your father, and perfectly understood in 
our community, that I not only had nothing to do with bringing Mr. Brooke for- 
ward a* a candidate, but that / was opposed i<> it. [See appendix A., B., C. and D.] 
You both know that Isham Keith, Torbert and Nki.ma. originated the scheme, 
and that I objected to it, and told both Keith and Brooke that I was pledged to another. 
And you both know that when his intended nomination was known, it was receiv- 
ed with pleasure by nine-tenths of the Whigs who attended March court ; and more 
than this, you both know that your father ordered you to accept the nomination, as 
the onlv means of preventing the foolish people from electing Mr. Brooke. Yet, 
for the purpose of carrying out your scheme of defamation, you wilfully assign his 
nomination to me, and ascribe it to base and sordid motives ! Have you no respect 
for the opinions of your neighbors and county-men, that you thus violate facts uni- 
versally known amongst them ? Have you abandoned your home character, and 
seek by spurious and false pretentions, to stand fair abroad ? 

I will pass by your prosy and most feeble efforl to extricate yourself from the 
glaring and injurious misrepresentation of Mr. Brooke, for which he arraigned you 
so successfully before the public. Although you seek malignantly to connect me 
with that affair, and in prosecution of your deliberate purpose of defamation, charge 
me with acting there behind the scenes, I' think Mr. Brooke may safely lei that 
question rest, without further reply. In support of this notable scheme of your 
father, he makes you aver that I was not only Brooke's adviser in that afiuir, bu' 
that I wrote his last letter addressed to H. Clarkson. 11 I had written that letter, I 
would clearly have been Brooke's adviser, so that it was very material to establish 
the fact. There were but two letters written by Brooke on the occasion referred 
to' — the first to your father, and the second to Clarkson. You knew that Sam. Chil- 
ton wrote the first — you had seen his printed certificate to that effect — and I have 
his letter now before me, in which he says he told you, in person, that he had writ- 
ten it. If justice and truth were your objects, why did you not ask him, who wrote 
the last? It was part of the same subject, and most natural that he concluded, what 
you knew, he began. He lives in the same town, and has his office under the 
same roof with yours, and he is in daily and intimate association with you. Why 
did not you ask him ? Why did you, without one iota of proof, gratuitously charge 
it on me? The truth would not suit you, because il did not condemn me. You. 
therefore, have asserted roundly what you knew, or ought to have known, was un- 
true. And thus you have done with the view, to use your own language, " of de- 
priving me of every vestige of character ! I shall onl) state here that I had no 
agency, directly or indirectly, in that aflair, other than what occurred in the pre- 
sence of Di. Helm , that the two (Dr. Helm and M. P. Brooke,) consulted me as to 



47 

what reply Brooke ought to return the Judge. Helm earnestly pursuaded Brooke to 
express his regret for the past, and attribute it to hasty excitement, &c. I asked 
Brooke if he could say this with truth, and he replied no. I then told him his let= 
ter was a proper one. This, I aver, is all I had to do with that affair. 

Br. George Lee. 

You take up the letter of Dr. George Lee, and flourish at a big lick. By some 
oversight, though, your father has copied from Brooke's pamphlet, all that he char- 
ges on Dr. Lee's authority. Your readers are thus enabled to detect the ground- 
lessness of your clamor. There is not the slightest discrepancy between Lee's let- 
ter, and the statement in Brooke's pamphlet. The gist of Lee's evidence, as report- 
ed by Brooke, was, that he had held a long conversation with you the day after the 
affray with Brooke, and that you had then said nothing derogatory to Brooke 
This is, in substance, all that Brooke reported on Lee's authority. The Doctor 
comes hopping out in a volunteer letter, and complains of the injustice done him 
by Brooke! and he forthwith reiterates the only and the very fact, which Brooke 
had stated on his authority ! This fact was all we wanted. It was true, it was 
Brooke's protection, against gross injustice, and he asked his old acquaintance to 
state it for his benefit. Dr. Lee, under such circumstances, refused to do Brooke 
this simple justice. He was then told that we should state the fact, on his autho- 
rity — and when iC the injustice" of which he complains, is examined, it just amounts 
to a fussy nothing. If he had made " his very nice distinction," and I do hot doubt 
it, for he was a very correct man, I paid no attention to it, not perceiving how it af- 
fected the admitted fact. 

On the faith of this " injustice" letter of Dr. Lee, you flame out in great and vir- 
tuous indignation, and elegantly denounce me as a "convicted liar." Your at- 
tempt to make capital out of this Lee affair, is a very poor thing. Suppose your fa- 
ther had such a theme for denunciation as } r our Scott Peyton story. What a storm 
of invective he would pour forth ! 

The points laid down. 

To an attentive reader, the points of your joint defence are very apparent. Your 
father's great labor, is to clear his skirts of the charge of "pirating"" a track of land 
from his connexion, Mrs. Steptoe Pickett, whilst your great labor is to shake off the 
charge which Brooke brought against yor, of wilful misrepresentation in your at- 
tempt to bully him. These are the great leading points of your defence. Boxers 
teach us that the most certain defence, is to sprawl your adversary in the dust. 
Your father's scheme is, first to knock his accuser on the head ; secondly, to fortify 
himself with a show of good character, and these two points being established, that 
is, that his accusers are base persons, utterly without character, and that he is th e 
most exalted character, it is tb.€n an easy matter to demolish the vile accusation. 



48 

When he comes to argue on the accusation, he is, of course, ingenious ; but you 
will Bee from Mr. Brooke's reply, that, in his own case, he is totally unfair, and un- 
sound ; as it regards his argument to release you, you must feel its insufficiency 
Having thus glanced at the frame work of your defence, I must proceed to examine 
seriatim, the materiel of its structure. The Scott Peyton story was a shot aimed 
at an accuse r — so was all that about Brooke's being my candidate, and his giving to 
my little son a negro boy 4 years old, and to my wile, an old barouche — and to 
the same account must be placed all that uproar over Dr. Lee's "injustice" (.'!') 
letter. The next in order, I believe, is "the Dixon and .Maxwell affair." 1 am 
puzzled to know to what account your explanation on this subject tends 

" The Maxwell and Dixon affair?'' 

All that Brooke charged, is in these words : " Your Dixon and Muxwell affair 
would make a pretty paragraph." On this short text you amplify for a whole page, 
and undertake to defend your conduct as prosecutor, and show that you discharged 
your duty. You affect not to know the allusion of Mr. Brooke, and say that you 
can "leave nothing to conjecture'.!'''' and you pretend to think he alluded to a fee- 
bleness, or faithlessness, in your mode of prosecuting Dixon ! You knew that he 
alluded to the fact of your having consented to appear in Dixon's defence, in the 
action for damages which Maxwell was to bring against him, when you were bound 
by your position, as Attorney for the Commonwealth, to prosecute Dixon for the 
same offence. It was the indelicacy, or rather indecency, of these conflicting en- 
gagements to which Brooke had allusion. Of this you were well informed, for you 
had, in your possession, the following correspondence : 

" Martin P. Brooke, Esq. 

" Dear Sir: I perceive in a pamphlet, lately addressed to Robert E. Scott, Esq.., 
" and signed by you, that the affair between Thomas Maxwell and myself, is referred 
" to, as one of your charges against Mr. Scott. Justice to him and myself requires 
« that the motive, by which you were actuated, in referring to that subject, should 
" be made known, as it might, and has proved, highly injurious to me. For you will 
" readily see, that it leaves the world under the impression that ray acquittal is 
" solely attributable to a want of zeal and inclination, on his part, faithfully to pro- 
" secute me as the Commonwealth's Attorney. Your prompt reply to this com- 
" munication will be thankfully received by 

" Your obedient servant, 

« H. T. DIXON. 

« Warrextox, Sept. 28, 1811." 

" H. T. Dixon, Esq. 

" Dear Sir : It is with regret that I learn, from your letter, that my allusion " to 
" the Dixon and Maxwell" affair, in the letter addressed to Robert E. Scott, and 
u published in pamphlet, has been perverted to your injury. It gives me great 



49 

" pleasure to assure you, that, in making that reference, I had no such purpose in 
" view. It was not in relation to Mr. Scott's manner of conducting the prosecu- 
" tion that I arraigned him, but I had understood, that pending the prosecution, he 
" had consented to appear for you, to defend you in the civil suit, which Maxwell 
" was expected to institute against you. It struck me as wrong for a prosecuting 
" Attorney to appear against you, at one time, and for you, in a different act* n, in- 
f* volving an investigation of the same transaction. In regard to your acquittal, by 
" the Court, I had not the least design to impeach its perfect fairness and regulari- 
w ty. I hope this will be a satisfactory reply to yours of this date. I am, with res- 
ts pect, &c, 

*M. P. BROOKE. 

« September 21st, 1841." 

" P. S. It was not until ray conversation with you, this morning, that I knew 
" token you had engaged the services of Mr. Scott, in your defence, against Max- 
" well's suit. You then informed me, that anticipating a civil action for damages, 
* you had written to Mr. Chilton to retain Mr. Scott in your defence, and that this 
" was before the prosecution was instituted against you. If this is a mitigation of 
'' Mr. Scott's conduct, he ought to have the benefit of it. I am anxious to do what 
" is right, let the consequences be what they may. 

« M. P. BROOKE.' 1 

Since the above correspondence, I have received a letter from Mr. Chilton, in re- 
ply to an enquiry on this subject, and justice to Robert Scott demands that 1 should 
give the statement of Mi. Chilton, as it relieves Mr. Scott from the charge of which 
I had considered him guilty. Neither he or his father pursue this course towards 
me, but their example I shall avoid. I here extract frcm a letter of Samuel Chil- 
ton, dated January 27th, 1842. 

' ; Mr. Dixon requested me, before the call court met. to retain Mr. Scott for him 
" as counsel in the expected suit for damages. Mr. Scott declined the retainer, 
t; saying he must see what the case was against Dixon, before he could determine 
u upon his course. After Dixon was acquitted, he delayed accepting the retainer, 
'' but finally consented to appear as Dixon's counsel. 1 ' 

With this correspondence before you, your father asserting "that he can leave 
tiothing to conjecture,'''' writes a whole page in defence of your able and efficient 
prosecution of Dixon ! ! I admire such candour; and am sure, when fully under- 
stood, it must add great strength to your cause. 

The Culpeper dbuse. 

The Scotch have a proverb, "Many a michle makes a mucklc ,•" and your father 
piles upon me a sight of " midctek" He gives a long paragraph denying that you 
called Brooke " an, upstart?' 1 before the Culpeper jury, or that you then abused him. 
Now Brooke does not say that you used the word ft upstart," (because I know 

7 



50 

you did not;) he says that you on that occasion described him " as an upstart," 
who had come t<> ortune by the accident of death. You certainly did not say " up- 
start," once in that speech, and if Brooke's language conveys that idea, it is er- 
roneous. But your descriptions made him out an " upstart." Why else refer to 
his coining to sudden fortune ? As to your abuse of him, it shocked the whole 
Court House; and Brooke's lawyers promised to pay it off in kind, which they 
failed to do. This u mickle" does but little service ; it is very like that " Lee in- 
ustice." 

The Sulphur Spring allusion. 

Continuing his purpose of piling together small matters, "micArZes," your father 
enlarges upon another short sentence in Brooke's pamphlet. "• Your fathers Sul- 
phur Spring's behaviour^ t^says Brooke,) the manner of the purchase of the land 
from, the orphan and indigent children of C. R. Scott, and many more (charges) 
would swell this address, already too long, to a volume." The Judge undertakes to 
fill up Brooke's meaning here, and to reply at large to charges of his own creation. 
u Your father's Sulphur Spring's behaviour .'" he undertakes to say that Brooke 
intends by this to censure him for opposing Thomas Green's lease of the property, 
lie knows well that such was not the allusion. lie knew that Brooke referred to 
his conduct in the meeting of stockholders. JUDGE SCOTT expecting to meet 
men between whom and himself the most intimate fiiendship had existed; but who 
now opposed him on a question of how the company should manage their pro- 
perty — whether they should farm it out, or carry it on under their own manage- 
ment. I say Judge Scott went into a meeting of the stockholders to contend with 
his old and intimate friends on this naked question, and he met them ''armed to 
the teeth ! !" He had in his pockets two pistols, and doubtless about his person 
his large " Mercer'" dirk ! ! It was this shocking preparation to butcher his un- 
suspecting friends if they were too strong foi him in the vote, that Mr. Brooke al- 
luded to in this sentence. 

Charles R. Scott's orphan children. 

The Judge also pretends to misunderstand the allusion to the purchase of the 
land of' 1 Charles R. Scott's heirs." He makes it the occasion of giving a long de- 
tail of his wonderful honesty in voluntarily giving up his purchase of that land to 
these heirs. Now the Judge knew well that Brooke could not have alluded to 
any such thing. His allusion was this : 

These orphan children were absolutely destitute, except for a small tract of land 
of about 22 acres, surrounded by Judge Scott's land. It had some wood upon it, 
and being near Warrenton, was of some value. These poor children had been sent 
to Missouri, to their brother, and their land was decreed to be sold by the county 
court. It was offered for sale by their guardian, and ROBERT E. Lee, son-in-law 
of the Judge, bid ten dollars an acre for the land, and publicly proclaimed that to 



51 

be its "full value," and that any man who bid more would lose his money, as he 
should never put foot on the land. That it was surrounded by Judge Scott's land? 
and he would be carried through all the courts of the Commonwealth before he 
should have a road. In the face of this threat, Digges and Hart purchased the land 
at $12, but they not being able to pay for it, it was re-sold, and John P. Kelly and 
Corbin Baker, became purchasers at $14 per acre. Corbin Baker was under the 
impression that Judge Scott had taken this land off his hands, and on his authority 
Brooke so stated it in his pamphlet. Judge Scott has since denied that he agreed 
tc give more than $10 per acre. This was Mr. Brooke's allusion, and I much mis- 
take if there are not more than himself that, feel « indignant at the maimer of the 
purchase of the land from the orphan and indigent children of Charles R. Scott:" 

" Waterloo, January 15, 1842. 

" Dear Sir : It has become important to me, to ascertain the facts in relation 

" to the sale of the land of C. R. Scott's heirs, which you made under a decree of 

" the county court. I understood from many, that when the land was put up, Mr. 

" Robert E. Lee bid $10 an acre for it, and affirmed that to be its full value; and 

" he proclaimed aloud that if any one bid more for it, he would lose his money, 

" for the land was surrounded by Judge Scott's land, and they could not get a 

" road through him, without travelling through every court in the Commonwealth. 

k ' I was told that in the teeth of this threat, Digges and Hart bid $ ; that they not 

" being able to pay for it, ycu offered the land for sale a second time, some months 

'< afterwards, and Mr. Lee attended the second sale, and again bid $10 ; and again 

" made the same proclamation ; that Corbin Baker and John P. Kelly bought the 

" land on this occasion, at $ per acre. If the above statement is incorrect, will 

" you say in what particular, and oblige yours, &c, 

"M. P. BROOKE. 
" Charles Kemper, Esq." 

" Cedar Grove, January 22, 1842. 

" Dear Sir : In reply to your note of the 15th inst. asking certain information ; 

" I have to state, that, at the first sale of the land alluded to, Mr. Robert E. Lee did 

" bid $10 per acre, saying that it was worth no more, and proclaimed in hearing 

" of the bidders, that if any one bought it, he could not have a way to it. Digges 

# and Hart bid $11, and it was cried out to them. When offered a second time, 

" Mr. John P. Kelley bought it at $14 50. If Mr. Lee was present on that occa_ 

" sion, I do not now remember it. I have answered your enquiries to the best of 

" my recollection. 

" Respeetfullv, vours, 

, t \ " C. KEMPER. 

" Martin P. Brooke, Esq." 

The Lowe and Mwell lot. 
The explanations which your father makes about the Lowe and Atwell lots, may 
or may not be true. It will form the subject of judicial investigation between. Mr 



52 

ke r\m\ himself, and in thai case be lull) tested. In asserting that your father 
had appropriated them at an under price, I did it on Mr. Bn oke's authority, and 
on my own judgment. Y our father charges them to himself, in his account, at 
$900 ; which is s; 50 per acre. The house lot was encumbered with a lease for 
the life of an old woman, thea more than ninety years old. The Atwell lol was a 
lease for the life of George B. Pickett, then about forty-seven years old. The re- 
version of the Lowe ipt, and the life estate oi th Atwell lot, were held in partnership 
by Judge Seen and F. W. Brooke, each lot containing about 100 acres. The two 
lots lie in sight of Warrenton ; now whether i$4 50 per acre was a (air price, is 
matter of contest. The Atwell lease fell in about five years alter your father 
charged himself with it at si 50 per acre, and you bought the fee simple at ^20 
per acre, as 1 have understood. Whether there was any. or what quantity of wood 
on the Lowe lot, is also matter of contest. I have but little doubt it will turn out 
in proof to have had as much wood on it as Mr. Brooke says there was. 

My funded security. 

It comes within the general scope of your defence, to represent me as " the catiff, who 
in fancied security, under cover of another's name, hurl my poisoned missile's, <$t." 
With what justice do you insinuate that I skulked from consequences behind any 
man's name ? You know that before Brooke's pamphlet was seen by mortal eye, 
other than our own, that we sent a number to you and one to your father, by 
Col. John Kemper, who was authorized to tell you that I wrote it and did so tell 
you. The fact of my writing it, was publicly known and avowed ! Why go into 
heroics about u my fancied security under another name" You act most wisely not 
to disturb " this fancied security.'" 

Conclusion. 

I believe I have got pretty well through with all the small matters, " the filing 
«p," of you and your father's book. There are many things which 1 cannot think 
of; but none that cannot be resolved under one oi' the heads of your defence. 
Your purpose from the start is to decry and detract, regardless of truth and justice. 
1 do not think there are more than one or two charges left unanswered. I will re- 
verse your equity maxim as to them ; "falsum in uno falsvm m omnibus''"' — false 
in one, false in all ; and render it u falswn in omnibus Jul sum in uno u being false in 
all the rest, you are false in this one also. 

I will here close, having, I think, exhibited the unscrupulous and cruel purpose 
of both you and your father to blacken and defame me. 1 sincerely hope that your 
eyes are now opened to the sin of a blind obedience to your father's will. 
Judge yourself, and never violate a high moral law. You owe much to your father ; 
every son does — but there is a limit, beyond which, obedience is sinful servility. 

A. J. MARSHALL." 



53 

THE GREAT WESTERN. 



u A. J. Marsrall, Esq. 

" Oakwood June 6, 1841. 

" Sir : I little expected when I transmitted to you an account consisting of three 
u items, and requested that you would make out your account against me, to the 
" end that the few and trivial transactions between us should be adjusted, that it 
" would lead to a renewal of our correspondence. Instead, however, of rendering 
" your account, with such explanations as might be necessary, you accompanied it 
" with two notes in each of which you make offensive remarks. 

" In one, you express your great concern at having unconsciously remained my 
*' debtor. [Note 1] This from you ! Look at the balance sheet of your ledger, 
" compare the debtor balances with the creditor balances, and say whether you 
" have no other reason for distress than the omission to pay me for a quarter of 
" beeFF ! [Note 2] when, too, if your claim for clerk's fees is correct, as you say 

Note 1. I am sorry thus to have offended ; but it must be remembered that his Honour had 
publicly cast up to me the weighty obligations he had conferred upon me. " That he had raised 
me out of the ashes," a favorite figure of his — by the way, he once appliedit to the late Dr. Sei- 
dell, of Leesburg. I then publicly denied his claim to my gratitude. I felt a little sensitive, I 
suppose, and gave his Honour the assurance of my unconsciousness of having remained under 
even so slight an obligation, in perfect sincerity. 

Note 2. — This is positvely childish. Why again assert claims to my gratitude, which had 
been publicly protested. The Judge and myself were near connexions — we were friends, kind 
friends ; and kind offices were mutually and habitually interchanged. We each mutually sym- 
pathised in the wishes and views of the other. But neither was under obligations. I utterly 
deny any advantage on his side, and hold in derision this false claim- 

The Judge in the meeting of March, said he had " raised me out of the ashes ;" that lie had 
" given me the clerkship." I very promptly denied the Litter charge, and challenged the proof. 
This point afterwards became matter of discussion among our friends, and I think it was deci- 
ded that his Honour by his influence had gained me one vote, and like a bad kicking gun, had 
lost me four. The magistrates not chosing to support me because of my close affinity to him. 
But I was reminded of a part of the history of the day, which abates wonderfully from my obli- 
gations. I was Attorney for the Commonwealth ; if I wa.i elected cleik, the office of attorney 
became vacant. Robert Scott had just come to the bar; and the Judge wished to advance him 
to my post. Robert Scott was a young man, diffident of his own capacity, and unwilling to become 
a candidate, because Samuel Chilton, who was his senior and friend, was a candidate. The 
Judge, though, would not hear of such delicacy ; he told h;s friends that Robert must be pushed ; 
that it was a post which would make him distinguish himself; and thus his friend Samuel Chil- 
ton was quietly pushed aside. Now, whether the Judge's exertion were to get me into the clerk- 
ship or to get me out of the attorneyship, is a question which will divide his most intimate friends. 
For my own part, I believe the Judge was sincere. I think my election was, with him, the 
rincipal, and Robert, the incident. 



54 

u you believe it is, you were not my debtor at all. Why go out of your way to ex- 
u press your concern at being under even this trifling obligation to im .' 

M In your other note, not content with assuming your reasons tor bringing for- 
" ward your dormant claim of clerk's fees, you undertake to look into my u sys- 
" tern" of doing business, and take upon yourself to say in effect, that, although 
w you cannot produce the fee bills, yet, unless I produce them, I am bound in ho- 
u nor, though not in law, to pay the fees ; and when I complain of this, with the 
" facility which characterizes you, you say that you did nothing more than leave it 
u to me to say whether I was satisfied that the fees were paid or not. Either you 
" intended to be offensive, or you cannot comprehend the meaning of your own 
k ' language. Charity, and a knowledge of " the character of your mind, n might lead 
" to the latter opinion, and perhaps I do you injustice in taking any notice of this 
" matter, especially when you placed my requisition upon you to produce evidence 
" of the payment of the debt, which appeared to be clue me by the old account 
" found among my papers, on the same footing with your requisition on «?e, to 
u prove payment of your fees, and do not perceive the difference between full 
' prooFF and no prooFF at all. An account rendered by you to me in your own 
t' hand-writing, striking a balance in my favor in absence of prooFF of payment, 
" would entitle me to recover in a court of justice ; whereas, a claim for clerk's 
u fees, unsupported by the fee bills, so far from being proven, encounters the pre- 
u sumption of payment ; and yet, you a clerk, and some times lawyer, say they 
" stand upon the same ground.. [Note 3] 

" As to the fee of the late Culpeper clerk, it is quite as agreeable to me as it can 
" be to you, to transfer the enquiry from you to his executor. Although it may 
" not be worth your while to enquire into such small matters , the state of my fi- 
" nances, and the demands upon them, make it quite proper for me not to pay a de- 
" mand of even ten dollars, until I am satisfied I owe it, especially when a very lit- 
" tie trouble will remove all doubts. Our accounts will then stand thus : [Note 4] 

Note 3. — A little lamb one day was drinking from a rivulet. A hungry wolf was quench- 
ing his thirst from the same stream, but at a point above. " Villian," quoth the wolf, how dare 
you muddy the water thus, from which I drink," " God save you," replied the terrified lamb, 
" the water from my mouth passes from you, and can in no way effect you." " Impertinent, 
wretch," said the wolf, "you or your grandmother, or some of your kin, once sassed my mo- 
ther's great aunt, and I'll eat you up any how." 

MORAL 

Bad men when they mean to quarrel never wanl lor pretexts. 

Note 4. — Quite sarcastic this ! I do not blame the Judge for investigating the smallest 
claims when he has a doubt about them. I knew this to be his habit. Indeed, I knew him to 
refuse to pay his subscription often dollars to a jockey club at the Springs, and his only excuse 
I presume, was his quarrel witli the Spring's company ! ! Such is " the character of my mind." 
that I do not admit that a man can avoid his obligation to pay even ten dollars, because he has 
fallen out with his creditor, who will abandon the claim rather than resort to coercion,. 



36 62 
10 00 


$24 15 
8 47 


26 62 
32 62 


$6 00 



55 

<< Amount of your account for printing, &c. - $32 62 

''• Tax on four county seals ---=,_- 4 00 

' w Culpeper clerk's fees, withdrawn - 

" My account rendered and admitted - 

k ' Error in short charge for beeFF - 

;t Balance due nie - - - - 

" As to your charge for Clerk's fees, (which you say you" withdraw) notwith- 
" standing the alledged confusion of your papers, as I anticipated, you had no dif- 
" ficulty in producing all that was necessary to show the true state of the transac- 
" tion, embraced in the old account, found among my papers, and rendered, as far 
" back as 1830. Nor did you find any difficulty in producing the fee bill against 
u Robert E. Lee, for the small sum of six dollars which you say was pretermits 
" ted in two settlements of accounts between you and him, in one of which you 
" gave him your note for the balance due him. I cannot help thinking, therefore, 
" that when your mind can descend from its lofty contemplations, to a small mat- 
" ter of business, and you can spare so much of your precious time as will enable 
" you to make a few hours search through your papers, which, however, confused 
<' they may be, cannot be very voluminous, you will find the bills for the fees 
" which you claimed of me, if you did not retain them in your hands, as you sup- 
" pose you did. If you decline the trouble, one motive for it, I shall be bound to 
" believe, is to retain them for your street talk, a fruitful subject, of which I have 
" been informed, this withdrawn claim has been. Whenever the bills are produced, 
" or if they are charged in the account placed in the hands of Mr. Helm, a year or 
" two ago, I hold myself bound to pay them, unless I can prove that I have paid 
" them heretofore. [Note 5.] 

Note 5. — Some sharp shooting here too ! The Judge is not bad at sarcasm ! But is it not 
strange that he anticipated my ability to show the payment of the $139.16 cents, of twelve 
years standing, which he brought against me. If he knew I had a receipt, why advance the 
claim ? I do not comprehend — but " such is the character of my mind !" My papers, I had 
told him, were in great confusion, the receipt might have been lost — and we see how offensive it 
is to ask for the lights his old papers could shed ! It is clear that if my receipt had been lost, I 
should have had to pay that $139,16 cents, with interest over again, notwithstanding the Judge 
says he anticipated (when he advanced the claim) that I could, without difficulty, show the 
true state of the transaction. 

But them fee bills ! oh ! them plaguy fee bills ! If it will not throw him into a fit of bad 
spelling again, I will, for the the hundredth time, explain them. Well, as I was saying, from 
1832 to 1835, it was my habit to cull from my Clerk's bills, the fee bills of particular friends, 
who, from any cause, I did not choose to collect from. These fee bills I preserved in a separate 
envelope. It was my belief that Judge Scott had been exempted, and that his bills were in this 



66 

u You perceive that I have added to the charge for beeFF. [note 6] I was mistaken, 
u both in the quantity and price. The first was too small, the latter too high, in 
K the account I made out from memory. I have been fortunate enough to find the 
u receipt given at the time of salt, a document far more valuable, as a refutation of 
u another ground taken by you, than as a voucher for the additional charge of 
" $8.97. The following is a copy of it : 

" 'Received of Mr. Welch, a quarter of beef, weighing 296 pounds. Also, the 
" other quarter, 156 pounds. 

"MARIA R. MARSHALL. 
« March, 1835.'" 

" So much as relates to the first quarter, is in the hand-writing of Mrs. Marshall, 
" the remainder in your own. The figures, I presume, are yours also. 

" After having given this receipt, and in your note, through Mr. Helm, admitted 
the purchase of the beei'F charged in my account, and said that it was the impres- 
" sion of both you and Mrs. Marshall thai it had been paid, for you have not only 
" made this little matter of account the subject of gossip in the village of Warren- 
" ton, and its neighborhood, but you have caused it to be reported, that I had 
" trumped up an account against you for articles which my wife had given as pre- 
" sents to your family. [Note 7.] 



said envelope. When the Judge called for a settlement of our affairs, I thought these fee bills 
might as well be brought in, and I looked for the bundle in which they were placed. The bun- 
dle, with all its contents, was lost, and knowing that the Judge systematically preserved vouch- 
ers for every thing he paid, and could produce the fee hills, if he had ever paid them, I franklj r 
told him my difficulty, and asked him to examine his papers and say whether he had ever paid 
them or not. This put the Judge in a passion, and he forthwith spelt proof, " phooff," and 
beef, "beeff," and I pronounce it. an outrage. 

Note 6. — His Honor not only increases his beef account, but most unjustly adds to the let- 
ters with which he spells it. The word beef occurs six times, and the word proof eight time*, 
and he violently puts on the FF in every case. I verily believe he is not a graduate. 

Note 7. — This is a grave charge of deliberate falsehood, where my motive must have been 
the smallest and lowest malice. Judge Scott should have been slow to bring such a cha ge 
against any one without full proof ami strong necessity. In my case, his Honor violates every 
principle of justice and evidence. When he sent in his account it became the subject of gene- 
ral remark, not the account, or the items, but it was the fact of sending in his account then, 
which was looked upon as indicating his purpose to set aside the amicable adjustment that lia d 
been effected. It was this wilful determination to perpetuate a breach of his own making that 
impressed me with indignation. I exhibited his account, not as objecting to its items, but to 
the bad spiritwhich prompted the Judge at such a time to send it. Taken in connexion with the 
conduct of Mr. Lee, and his sending in my books, I looked upon it as a war measure, and so ex- 
plained it to many gentlemen who felt an interest in the matter. I will venture to say that my 
acquaintances may be sifted, and not a man has received from me or my family, the impression 
that the items of that account were ever presents. The largest item (for beef) was once paid 
or, but I have no ™ear.3 of satisfying the Judge of its payment, and I know he thinks it is due— 



57 

" I say you have done these things, and I say it on circumstantial evidence, that 
" would convict you of the charge before any honest and impartial jury. This ac- 
" count was handed to you. It has been a subject of village and neighborhood gos- 
" sip. Through what channel did it become so, if not through you ? It would be 
" difficult to persuade any one acquainted with me, that it was through my agency. 
" You will hardly say it was through Mr. Helm. Through what other channel 
" than yourself, then, has it become a public talk ? [Note 8.] 

" That you are the author of the report, is equally clear. Who else would have 
" conceived the idea ? Say that the account was posted at the front of the Court 
" House, instead of being placed in your hands ; it consisted of three items. A 
" quarter of beeFF, sold you by my overseer, a sum of money ($8) assumed by 
" you for another, and a mutton ; and they were stated as offsetts against your 
k > printer's bills. Who, upon the face of the earth, from inspection of the account, 
" would have imagined that I was trumping up charges for things which my wife 
" had given, as presents, to yours ? The very nature of the report shows its pa- 
" rentage. Again, it was currently circulated in the village, in the streets and shops, 
" of which you spend your days, and amongst your relations, so as to reach your 
" sister, who resides in another county. Who but yourself, I again demand, could 
" have originated, and thus circulated it ? So much for the account. [Note 9.] 

" There is one other subject I will touch upon, and then have done with you 



I, therefore, pay it over again without a murmur or bad feeling, because I blame only myself. 
This slanderous charge against me must be put to the account of a blind and impotent malig- 
nity. 

Note 8.— Perfectly true. I did exhibit the account, and talked freely of the spirit which im- 
pelled the Judge to send it. 

Note 9. — This argument, if it rises to that dignity, seems to be very conclusive to the Judge's 
mind. I hold it to be a perfect " non sequitur ;" because I showed the account, I must, there= 
fore, have misrepresented it ! Why resort to circumstantial evidence? Ifl gossip thus freely^ 
surely, some one among my associates in "the village" could be brought to prove the charge. 
The account was given to me on the 3d of May, and this letter was sent to me on the 20th of 
June — the Judge should have had positive proof. It is very obvious how such a report was 
started. It took its origin, no doubt, in the nature of the items, (beef and mutton) the intimacy 
of our families, and the lapse of time, before the account was presented. Much greater errors 
have arisen from less foundation. It was to prove this abominable charge upon me, that Robt. 
Scott, after the " Gieat Western" was written, took the certificate of Woodville Latham, that 
he had heard Col. Picket Withers say, that he heard A. J. Marshall say, that these charges had 
bean pressnis to his wife. This certificate was taken in Washington City— Mr. Latham and 
Mr. Withers reside in Culpeper, about 8 miles from Warrenton. As soon as Col. Withers heard 
of th« certificate, both he and Mr. Latham waited on Judge Scott, and told him that it was a 
mistake— that Col. Withers had received no such impression from me. This, I believe, is the 
nearest approach to positive proof the Judge and his son ever made. But what renders the 
charge against me more gratuitous, is that my aunt, (Mrs. Scott) in an interview of her own 
seeking told me of this report, and I assured her I had never sanctioned it. 
° 8 



68 

« forever. From the moment you settled in Warrenton, up to March Court, you 
" have received at the hands of both your Aunt and myself, nothing but unabated 
" affection and unremitting kindness. Our feelings towards you, and I cannot but 
" think, our conduct, too, were parental. In return for this, and without even the 
" pretext of provocation, you spoke of her in the most disrespectful manner. 
" When she complained to me of the outrage, I endeavored to appease her just re- 
" sentment, and to dissuade her mentioning the subject to you. Although the 
" apologies 1 made for you, were not very complimentary to your understanding, 
u they acquitted your heart. She persisted, however, in letting you know that she 
" was not ignorant of your conduct, but did not withdraw either her affection or her 
" kindness; but you, seemingly resolved to deprive yourself of the only defence 
" which could be made for you, and to lay bare the dark recesses of your bosom, 
" [What a moral monster I am!] not content with the unprovoked wrong which 
" you had practised towards her, but continuing to reverse the christian maxim, 
u with equal wantonness made me the object of abuse. — [Note 10.] Let me re- 
" capitulate to you the particulars. 

" When I arrived at Warrenton on the first day of March Court last, I heard a 
" vague rumor that you intended to bring out Martin P. Brooke as a candidate 
" for the House of Delegates. So preposterous was the scheme that I did not credit 
" the report, but referred it to a request which his wife had made of Isham Keith, to 
" have him made a justice of the peace. A short time afterwards. ! learned that 
" you had proposed Mr. Brooke to Mr. Lee as a candidate for the county. Within 
" an hour after this communication, I saw Mr. Lee again, and he informed me that 
" he had seen Mr. Torbertand Mr. Nelson (two of the gentlemen who it Mas said 
" concurred in bringing Mr. Brooke forward,) and they said it Mas a jest. After 
" this I had a conversation with you, in which I urged the nomination of Captain 
" Edmonds; in reply to which, you said you were pledged to Col. Walden,tha< you 
" should attend the meeting which was to beheld thatevening,but would take nopart, 
" except, perhaps, to record its proceedings. If, however, Col. Walden should be 
" nominated, you felt bound to support him. Upon this we parted, neither you 
" or I having mentioned the name of Mr. Brooke. [Note 11.] 



Note 10. — This grave accusation is utterly unjust, although, I have no doubt, it is the in- 
sult of a misunderstanding. The " disrespecrful remarks" made by me, which were reported to 
my aunt, and thus mortified her, if they had been reported in the spirit in which they were 
made, would have had no such effect. They were made at my own breakfast-table, in the course 
of an animated discussion between the Judge'sown daughter, her husband, (Mr. and Mrs. Lee) 
and myself. They were in defence of another aunt, and in a spirit of candid reproof towards 
both, but not of ill nature. Surely I would not have selected my own house, and her daughter 
to indicate my malignity. In regard to the kindness of my aunt and the Judge. I acknowledge 
it; but if their feelings were parental to me, mine were filial to them. So much the greater Las 
been the Judge's sin, for his violent and wanton interruption of these holy ties. 

Note 11. — I have two objections to the above statement. Thefirstis. thatit is not full 



69 

•'Just before the meeting was held, I was informed by Edward Digges, jr., (a bitter 
" enemy of Mr. Brooke., and the certifier in Judge ScoWs pamphlet,) that Mr. B. 
" was to be brought forward- To which I answered it was a mistake. He replied 
" it was certainly so, that he had just had an interview with you, in which you 
" declared your determination to bring Mr. Brooke forward. I have not since that 
" day converse:! with Mr. Digges, but I appeal to him with confidence. He com- 
" menced with these words: 'We shall be represented by a locofoco this year.' 
" (Tin scamp — he knew well how to tickle the Judge.) 

" I have since learned, that although in your conversation with me, you had been 
uw silent in regard to your absurd scheme of bringing Mr. B. forward ; and assigned 
u your pledges- to Col. Walden as the reason why you could not unite in the nomi- 
' w nation of Captain Edmonds, you had not only been active in electioneering to 
" effect the nomination of Mr. Brooke, and thus practiced a deception upon me, 
'• but wantonly assailed me by saying that no other Whig was opposed to his no- 
" mination,and I was influenced solely by personal hostility, growing out of my vin- 
K dictivc temper ; and that I '•persecuted the Brooke's.' This information comes 
*• from a source which precludes denial, and renders explanation impossible. What 
•• my motive was and what my temper, is matter of opinion. Such opinions, how- 
■• (. ver, I was not prepared to expect you to promulgate. In reply to my second 
" letter of March last, you said you did not mean to offend by the conduct, of which 
" I complained. I suppose you did not mean to offend either when you called me 
" vindictive and a. persecutor. [Note 12.] 



It omits the Judge's argument against holding- the meeting in the absence of " our rep- 
resentative who had not publicly withdrawn." This omission can be supplied by refer- 
ence to my narrative The second objection is to a statement which the Judge not 
only makes here, but which both he and Robert have reiterated in their pamphlet some 
half dozen times, with a full knowledge of its absolute untruth. I allude to the aver- 
ment that Mr. jirooke was my candidate, and that I was urging his nomination. Both 
the Judge and his son know that I was ignorant of the purpose to bring him forward till 
Monday morning. That I refused to unite in that purpose, till I ascertained that Wal- 
den would not return from the south in time for the canvass ; and that I had declared 
" ray opposition on Monday, both to Mr. Keith and to Mr. Brooke himself." (See their 
statements, Appendix A.) With this knowledge, they yet persist in ascribing his inten- 
ds i nomination '' solely" to me. Their object is obvious. They are thus enabled, as 
they think, (without offence) to decry and denounce the nomination, and asperse me as 
prompted to make it from the most sordid motive. This false and flimsy veil, badly con- 
ceals the malice and arrogance of their .hearts. The nomination made by Isham Keith 
and others, is offensive to their dictatorial tempers. They " dare" not apply such terms 
s "absurd," " disgraceful," "infamous," when thus endorsed, so against all truth, 
hey assign to it a different paternity, and then open their batteries. 

Note 12. — My letter here referred to by the Judge, was in reply to a letter from him, 
i which he had detailed certain specified grievances, which he desired to be removed 



60 

"That I ever persecuted 'the Brooke's,' as you call them, is an assertion which 
" you know to be untrue; for I can prove, sir, that you, who had the best means of 
« knowing, have often declared, that in the settlement of the accounts between me 
" and them, they had not a shadow o£ ground to complain. If you had said that 
w one of them persecuted me, and yourself too, you would have come nearer the 
" truth. What shadowy dreams of future compensation have lulled your resent- 
u meiil which once burnt sojkreely? (A brief insinuation this, that I am after the 
" old lady's funds.) I persecute the Brooke's ! Since the settlement of our ac- 
tt counts, I have studiously avoided all unnecessary mention of their names. 
« [Note 13.] 



prior to a full reconciliation between us. Those specifications were very trivial, and I 
replied that as " to them," I had intended no offence. If the Judge had specified, as 
matter to be explained, my animadversions on his course in the canvass, my reply would 
have been different. His violence and indecent behaviour towards a nominee whom I 
was sustaining was offensive to me, and both elicited and justified my remarks. 

Note 13. — The Brooke's, and the Judge, it must be remembered, were at bitter va- 
riance. With what justice the- .luuge claims to have pursued this decorous 
and manly course towards them, the reader may judge. I have witnessed such scenes 
as to be amused at this claim of forbearance. On one occasion, his Honor being in one 
of his " forbearing" moods, after cursing old Mrs. Brooke to his heart's content, offered 
my little boy, then four years old, a dollar, if he would step across the street and call the 
old lady " a d — d old bitch." The little fellow, having some of his father's " sordid 
propensities," put out instantly, and would, doubtless, have faithfully executed his er- 
rand, but his mother had him captured atthe old lady's gate. 

On another occasion, in talking of a dispute between Mrs. Brooke and her neighbor, 
about a dividing lane, his great "forbearance" bubbled over again, and he swore with 
horrid imprecations, that were it him, he would go to her house, and lock all the doors ; 
and if she did not consent to let him use the lane, he would set fire and consume her. It 
must be noted that Mrs. Brooke, the subject of all this " manly forbearance," was 
then 60 years old, and lay a helpless cripple on her sick bed ! I give these two, merely 
as instances of Ids "forbearance," which I have often witnessed. They occurred at my 
house, but under no sanction of secrecy, as these were strangers present. I have wit- 
nessed similar exhibitions over and often. At first it was painful to me, and I tried to 
check and allay, but I soon found it idle, and came at last to consider them as matter of 
amusement. 

The Judge's " forbearance" to the "Brooke's!" He studiously avoids all mention 
of their names ! ! Refer to his pamphlet, Appendix A. There he details a scene at 
which he presided ; where more scandal and slander on Martin P. Brooke is crowded 
into a smaller space, than was ever witnessed. Then his wonderful "forbearance" in 
March ! How he rolled the 'Squire under the mask of party attachment — " of patrio- 
ticism." I hold this claim to " forbearance" in utter ridicule. 



" Upon one occasion, I found it necessary to call on Martin for an explanation 
■* of some offensive language which 1 was informed that he had used of me, which 
" explanation he declared to both Robert and Dr. Helm, that he was willing to 
11 give ; and which I verily believe he would hf.ve given, and put an end to the 
-.** jar as far as he was concerned, had not your me Idling oar been thrust in; where- 
" by he was compelled to submit to a humiliation which I will not repeat. So far 
" fiom persecuting him, I have always thought and said, that had he have been left 
" to himself, we never should have had any difficulty in settling our accounts. 
" [Note 14-] 

ki True, I was opposed to the absurdity of bringing him forward as a candidate 
" believing as I, and ninety-riine-one-hundredths of the Whigs did, that we should 
" lose the county, and jeopardise the majority in the Legislature — (lose it as the 
" event has proven.) If I assigned reasons which it was unpleasant for him to 
" hear, he was the aggressor, by saying, in his canvass for the nomination, thai 
" I was the only Whig opposed to him, and that I was influenced by personal dis- 
•" like, a sentiment which I presume he borrowed from you. [Note 15.] I stated 
■" n ) fact that is not known to all of his acquaintances, of both political parties; 
" and to none better than to you. I never did him half the injury which your ar- 
" gument to procure Arthur Payne's vote; and your reply to Dr. Clarkson's re- 
" quest to use your influence with him to pay a just debt are calculated to do — to 
" say nothing of the terrors which, according to your own account, you held up 
" to him to prevent a certain meditated publication. Were I ten times the enemy 
44 that you represent me to be, I should not wish him more harm than your ill-judged 
" zeal is daily doing him. I shall dismiss 'the Brooke's,' hoping that they will 
" n »t make it necessary for me to assign all the reasons for the opinion that Mar- 
" tin P. Brooke, Esquire, can not be elected for this county. A hope in which 
44 ynu ought to join, as you would be a very conspicuous witness against him. 
" ' JVoribne recordo- will not serve you, for there are others who well remember your 
44 sayings, as well as myself. [Note 16.] 

Note 14. — This whole paragraph has been dissected by Mr. Brooke, in his first pamph- 
let. It turns out that Mr. Brooke did not submit to a humiliation — that Dr. Helm does 
not sustain the above statement — that Robert Scott only intended it as a little private 
vapouring to be kept in the family — and that I did not prevent Mr. Brooke from apo- 
logising to the Judge. 

Note 15. — This is a perfect Anachronism. The Judge's facts are here somehow 
upside down. Surely, Brooke did not complain of the hard things the Judge had said 
of him during the canvass, and ascribe them to personal dislike, before the Judge had 
said them! Then Brooke's complaints having come after the Judge's attacks, furnish 
no pretext for the attack. "Such is the character of my mind," that with every dispo- 
sing n to comprehend, I am perplexed by this inversion of facts. I am like the Irishman 
who stood upon his head to read a sign that was turned downside up. 

Note 16. — The Judge manages, under a manner of great simplicity, to embody more 



62 

''To return to yourself. The meeting which was held on Monday evening, ad- 
u journed to Thursday, on account of the absence of Robert E. Seott, who. although 
" he had expressed his determination not to beacandidate again, it was desired by 
« the Whigs generally, and believed by some of his friends, mighi be prevailed on 
•• to Bonsent to serve. He was expected by Tuesday's stage; havingbeen unexpect- 
u edly called hack to Richmond on urgent public business, as was known to you, 
" he did no1 return on Tuesday, bul was expected on Thursday evening, on which 
u day the adjourned meeting was held. At the request of Dr. Withers, I went into 
" the court-house, not as a member of the meeting, (for I took my seat alone behind 
" the bar,) bul to answer a question which he desired to put to me, in case the no- 
" initiation of candidates should not be postponed, to wit: 'Whether, in m\ opinion, 
" Robert E. Scott could, under any circumstances,'' be prevailed to serve another 
" session; which question I told him I should answer affirmatively. 

"The proceedings of the meeting commenced by :i motion made by .Mr. Chilton 
"for a further postponement. He argued that no inconvenience could iesull from 
" it, as it was known that the other party had made no nomination, and would make 
u none till the candidates for the Whigs wpix^ announced, and he considered thai an 
" adjournment was a proper respect shown to their representative, whose absence 
" was caused by his attendance on his public duties. You, the near relation, 
" and professed personal friend of that representative, so far from observing that 
" neutrality, which you had professed in your conversation with me, warmly op- 
" posed the adjournment. You commenced by asking Mr. Lee whether Robert E. 
" Scott had not announced to him his determination not to serve again. To this 
" Mr. Lee replied that he could not undertake to say that Mr. S. could not be in- 
" duced to consent to serve. This reply from so near a connexion of the absent 
« representative, should, in common decency, have arrested your opposition to an 
" adjournment — to say nothing of the presence of his father. [Note 17.] 

w You, ■, persevered it! your opposition, and in the course of your ie- 

" marks used language which I, and many others who were present, considered as 
" offensive to Robert. E. Scott. It is true that after having incautiously given vent 



slander and malice in a brief space than was ever done since the day of Sir Soloman 
Sarcasm. It must be borne in mind that he is very "forbearing" to the Brooke's, and 
."studiously avoids all mention of their names!!" 

Notf. 17- Was thereever such arrogance ! In what terms of lofty respect Robert Scott 

is alluded to. "Our absent representative" on "public duty"— "disrespectful to meet 
together in his absence"— and when Bob Lee, with oracular importance, replied, "that 
he could not undertake to say that Mr. Scott could not be induced to consent to serve," 
in common decency, the people ought to have dispersed, and waited events in respectful 
silence! And all these portents of a possible acceptance on the part of 'the great ab- 
sentee,' were disclosed in the presence of his father, too! How impious was my 
conduct. 



63 

" to feelings which have long rankled in your bosom, feelings which others have 
" long been aware of, but which my partiality for you would not permit me to be- 
" lieve to exist, you endeavored to retract. After having said, in express terms, that 
" he had treated his constituents with disrespect in not publicly announcing his in- 
" tendons-— you said he had made them known in a letter to you which you were 
" authorised to read. You then read an extract declaring his intention not to serve, 
" but suppressed that part of his letter in which he recommended different persons 
" as fit candidates. — -[Note 18.] Whatever may be the opinion of others as to your 
" authority to read that letter, it was your opinion expressed to me that you were 
" not authorised to read it. This you admitted in the meeting. 

" In the course of your remarks, in reply to Mr. Chilton, you used language such 
" as this : 'Is the meeting incapable of acting without the aid of Mr. Scott ? Can 
u we do nothing without Mr. Scott ? Can we not nominate a candidate without 
u Mr. Scott ?' 1 do not pretend to give your words, but the substance. They were 
" rendered more offensive by the tone and manner. All this was from the professed 
" friend and near relation of Mr. Scott, — [Note 19.] Smarting under this unwarrant- 
lw able conduct towards me, the full enormity of which I was not then apprised of, 
" irritated by the open prooFF which you then gave of your true feelings towards 
" Robert, and by your remarks, made behind his back, which you would not have 
" ventured upon to his (ace, I was betrayed into an ebullition of passion, of the im- 
a propriety oi wnicn i iiecame immediately conscious, and for which I apologised 
" to the meeting. Subsequent reflection satisfied me, that however full the evidence 
" which you had afforded of the secret hostility which so long had worn the mask 
" of friendship, yet nothing had occurred which justified my treatment of you in the 



Note 18. — I has-ebeen a great sinner in the Judge's eye — not only insisted on the compe- 
tency of the people to select a candidate for themselves, in the absence of "our absent repre- 
sentative," but he complains that when that exalted personage, no longer intending to honor the 
count}- by representing it^ wrote to me to announce his resolve, and like Elijah of old, pointed 
out on whom he willed that his robes should descend, I wickedly suppressed that part of his let- 
ter! Now, I have that letter before me, and will do the <-' absentee" the justice to state that 
there was no such arrogant dictation in his letter. The Judge has been misinformed. I did 
suppress part of what lie wrote, but it was done in kindness. I will now give all that Robert 
Scott wrote to me on the subject. I read the whole of it in the meeting, except the last sen- 
tence at the close. This I did " sitppkess" for an obvious reason. 

•■ I can not, under any circumstances, agree to become a candidate again. Do not let my 
" friends insist upon it, and thus place me in the unpleasant position of obstinately refusing. 
•• Cast about and select some one privately among your: elves, and bring him out at March 
" Court. 'Do not let the Locos know that I will not serve again, the expectation of encounter- 
" ing me may influence their selection of candidates.' And this is every word the letter con- 
tained, touching our county election. 1 would give all of this letter, but I fear that like Col. 
McCarty's good story of the English egotist, the printers capital I"s would give out. 

Note 19.— I thai hi Honor has thus specified the cause of his great passion. 

Men will take offence at very inadequate causes. The hooting owl takes offence at the merry 
sun, and scowl ■? at the broad imputant glare he inak( s,yet none but bats and beetles, and toads, 



64 

u meeting, and I considered an apology due to myself, to you, and to the public, and 
u accordingly tendered it. [Note 20.] 

" Finding that I had given you an advantage over me, you determined to push it 
M and make the most of it. Your ire, which till then had slept, suddenly boiled 
" over. You became excited, greatly more so than whi n my fingers were essaying 
d to eome in contact with your nose. And in reply to my letter, which if there was any-- 
" thing equivocal on its face, was fully explained by the communication through our 
" mutual friend, Dr. Clarkson, you wrote an offensive answer, which, under other 
u circumstances. j ou would not have ventured upon. 1 perceived at once that the 
a tables were turned. You who, in truth, were the original aggressor, had now 
" placed yourself doubly in the wrong, although your forecast did not enable you 
" to perceive it, when you penned and transmitted your answer to my letter and 
" message, which occupied you the greater part of the day — my reply opened your 
k - eyes ; and a 'change came o'er the spirit of your dream. 1 Hotspur became, on 
u a sudden, 'gentle as any sucking dove.' l Implacability' no longer 'formed any 
"part of vour character.' And you were wise enough to cut short an enquiry into facts, 
** by impliedly admitting my statement of my grievances, and declaring that you 
" did not mean to offend. If any thing could render you more ridiculous, it was 
" your subsequent struggle to avoid the effect of this admission, by first contradict- 
" ing my inference, and then admitting the facts inferred, to be true. But you say 
" there were other facts (whic!i you do not state; which w 7 ould acquit you from 
" blame. One of them, doubtless, was your having represented me in the public 
" streets as a vindictive persecutor^ — [Note 21.] 

" Now mark the difference of your treatment of my apology, and your condnct 



sympathise in bis complaints. The Judge g^ts into a rage because, when Mi. Chilton argued 
for a postponement of the meeting, on the ground ot Scott's absence. I opposed it, and had the 
hardihood to aigue that his absence was no sufficient reason — that we were sufficiently intelli- 
gent to discharge the duty, unaided and uninstructed, by him. My language, as here repoited 
by the Judge himself, ought not to have offended him •, and as to my manner, I can say nothing. 
I always endeavor to conform to the best Ciceronian models, and I flatter' myself that my •' tone 
and manner," on this occasion, were graceful and impress 

Note 20. — The Judge wiil invert theord . of facts. He seeks here to extenuate his violence, 
and assigns as a reason that he was smarting undei my unwarrantable conduct 1o him, of which 
he says he was not then apprised. If he did not know it how could he smart under it ? Try 
again, oh! Jui nol as the wolf did to the lamb— "eat me up an} bow." 

Note 21. — This whole paragraph is-jusl stuff" and rigmarole. The Judge wishes to insult and 
me, and to regain that positi< from which public opinion drove him, after the meeling 
in March. He accordingly "pulls 1 e" again, and withdraws all his apologies_. In 

his next paragraph he deliberab ly mi states the conduct of llobert E. Lee, and, as far as he can, 
places that beautiful hoy back a1 the Clerk's table, in the Court House, with both eyes shut up 
tight, cursing and swearing like Shakspear's Caliban. The gentlemen may now take what po- 
sition they please — my position is altog< !. isive. Duty to myself requires that I shall state 
clearly the lull reparation they both made me. 



" towards Robert Lee, a young man like yourself, and therefore upon a footing of 
" equality in all respects. He too was excited by your, course in the meeting, and 
" openly insulted you. For this insult you say ' he has fully and amply apolo- 
" gised.' Now what was his apology ? I understand the circumstances to have 
" been these : On the following day he sought an interview with Major Wallace on 
" a different purpose ; in the course of conversation which ensued, Major Wallace, 
" not as one authorized to demand an explanation, but of his own accord as a rau- 
" tual friend, alluded to the offensive remarks of Mr. Lee, and said that you had said 
" that it was natural for Mr. Lee to partake of the excitemeut which I had mani- 
" fested, and you could therefore readily excuse him. To which Mr. Lee replied that 
" he regretted having used the expression, and considered it due to himself. This 
" I suppose (for I have not conversed with him on the subject) Major Wallace, in 
" furtherance of his friendly views, communicated to you. As in this case, at least, 
" 'implacability formed no part of your character.' When you met Mr. Lee you 
" manifested am intention to speak to him, and he repelled you — and this you con- 
" sider full and ample reparation from him. I give it as I have heard it, not mean- 
" ing at all to enter the lists as the champion of Mr. Lee. He will return in a few 
" months, and is fully able to take care of his own honor. [Note 22.] 



Note 22. — The Judge, when a boy, used to play at marbles, and if he cried "slips," he had 
aright "to take back and shoot over."' This was under the "old regime." Boys play "for 
keeps" now-a-days, and he shant come " slippenses" over me, after this fashion. He wants to 
get back to " base" where he started from ; he seems to regret that he did not play out the high- 
handed and insulting game he commenced. I dont mean to let him play any such game on me; 
he apologised fully, and in writing too — and he shall not withdraw it — I play at "keeps." 

In regard to Robert E. Lee's apology, the Judge has made a most unfounded and absurd state- 
ment. It is impossible that Judge Scott can be ignorant of the full and satisfactory apologies 
which Robert E. Lee made. On the day after the outrage, Robert E. Lee was on the street be- 
fore breakfast. He went to many of my warmest fiiends, and expressed the deepest contrition 
and penitence. He said to the Rev. Mr. Lemon, in the presence of Erasmus Helm, Hamden 
White, and others, that he wished he was a member of the church — that, perhaps, reli- 
gion might enable him to control his passions. To Rkhards Payne he said, " A man in a pas- 
sion is a brute, and I apply the remark to myself." To Major Wallace, Henry Clarkson, Ar- 
thur Payne and others, he was open and undisguised in condemning himself, and expressing his 
regret. When I appeared on the streets, (which was not till a late hour in the forenoon) many 
of my friends told me of these demonstrations of regret; and Major Wallace sought me out to 
deliver an apology from Mr. Lee. I was reluctant to receive his apology — and with a decided 
sternness of manner, asked Major Wallace if he believed Robert E. Lee was sincere? He re- 
plied, yes—I know he was sincere — and added in a lowered tone of voice, " he wept sir — I as- 
sure you he weptlike a child." I was, at once, disarmed of all resentment. I told the Major to 
say to Robert Lee that I would meet him as a friend. 

Such was the reparation made to me by Robert E. Lee — a reparation at once ample and hon- 
orable. I did not require a written apology, because I cared not for forms, if the true spiritof re- 
gret and conciliation was evinced. Mr. Lee's apologies were ample, public, frequent, and 
made to all who would listen to him. They were brought to me by numbers of our mutual 
friends. How Judge Scott could write such a deliberate misstatement of Mr. Lee's apologise, 



66 

u It was to be expected, that after the termination of our first correspondence, that 
" we should have at least interchanged civilities when we met, especially as I passed 
" over your notable protest, in which you contradict my statement. As we do not 
" speak, you have thought it necessary to throw the blame on me. For this pur- 
" pose, you alleged, first, the refusal of Mr. Lee to speak to you — a strange reason 
' truly, for your not speaking to me. Secondly, my proposal through Mr. Helm 
u to settle our accounts, which you had dunned me for through the same channel 
" two years before ; and thirdly, that the first time we met after the affair of March 
" Court, was in the Court House, when I was on the bench. Supposing the last 
" to be true, it was doubly your duty to be the first to speak. It was a respect 
" due to my office, and a duty which you owed to me personally. But what shall 
" we say of your candour, when it is known that our first meeting was at the post 
a office ; that I sat on my horse for several minutes within ten feet of you ; that I 
" was accosted by several gentlemen, to whom I gave audible replies ; that I r«- 
" quested Mr. Dixon to ask for my papers and letters, which he did in your pre- 
" sence and hearing; that during all this time, you stood with your back to me; 
" and, finally, walked off without turning your face to me; and that this meeting 
' was before you received my accounts. [Note 23] 

" Self love cannot blind you to the true nature of such conduct. But why should 
' I wonder that your arrows should have been shot at me, when your near relation, 
" the companion of your youth ; your bosom friend ; the man who has generously 
" perilled his fortune to support your idleness and extravagance has not escaped, as 
" J and others can testify. [Note 24] 



is amazing. Mr. Lee has returned from Missouri, and has allowed this gross misrepresentation 
to remain uncontradicted ! His silence, under such circumstances, will receive deserved repro- 
bation from all honorable men. 

Note 23.— There is a good deal of very interesting detail in this paragraph. The Judge (who 
never gossips at all, but somehow or other, gets all the tittle-tattle afloat) wishes to show that 
I was to blame for not speaking— and that I had fib'd, and cast this shocking blame on him. I 
have fully explained this important matter in my narrative, and will only add here, that the in- 
terview at the Post Office was on the evening of the first day of the court (Tuesday, the 4th of 
May, post day with us,) that the Judge's account, and the interview with Mr. Lee, and his re- 
turn of all my books, had happened on the 3d of May. But what is most remarkable, my ac- 
count given to him on the same evening (Tuesday) expressly states that hisaccount, "although 

sent in on the day of April, had not been delivered till the 3d of May." If the reader will 

turn to page 26 he will see the fact ! Why will the Judge disregard facts, which lie open be- 
fore him ? But he says it was due to his office, due to himself- that I should advance and speak 
to him ! Why, if he had been our " absent representative," he could Hot have exacted greater 
deference. No allowance is to be made for my offended feelings, every thing to be swallowed up in 
respect for him, his family and his office. I verily believe, that for arrogance, bloated pride, and 
vanity, this father, son, and son-in-law, are unequalled in animated nature. 

Note 24.— Here is the most unalloyed and fiend-like malice. That I ever spoke, or 
thought, in malice, of that friend, is unutterably false. 

Judge Scott's warfare is 3omewhat peculiar to himself and family. Generally speak- 



67 

« This is intended for your eye ; I therefore send it through the post office with 
" my own hand. I hold the mirror up to you ; it will be your own fault if your 
" features are exposed to the gaze of the public. This is the last letter I shall 
" write to you. Nor will I receive another from you. If you wish to unburden 
'' your mind to me, do it verbally and to me in person face to face. I waive the 
" privileges of age, office, relationship, or any thing else which may be supposed 
" to stand in your way. What I say I will stand by and answer for in my own per- 
" son. [Note 25] 

" JNO. SCOTT." 

" P. S. I have forborne to transmit this letter for some time, in hopes that 1 
" might find something in your conduct which might enable me, injustice to my- 
" self, to withhold it altogether. I find, however, that the contents of my last com- 
" munication, which I transmitted through the post office, like those of its prede- 
" cessor, have become the subject of public talk and misrepresentation. This 
" could only have happened through you, and whilst it furnishes additional prooFF 
" that you are the author and propagator of the misrepresentations in regard to my 
" account, it shows also that forbearance on my part only invites further outrage on 

" yours. [Note 26] 

« J. S. 
« June 20, 1841." 

ing, where men are at " points/' and avowedly dislike each other, an instinctive deli- 
cacy forbids all interference m each others affairs. The consciousness that prejudice 
may disqualify them from doing justice, or that the base motive of doing their enemy an 
injury, may be ascribed to them, makes high-minded men most cautious to approach 
the sanctuary of an enemy's character. This high, but very common attribute, seems 
to have been omitted entirely in Judge Scott's anatomy. When he hates a man, he 
loses no chance to hurt that man. His unceasing effort is, " to cut off his enemy's sup- 
plies," — to circumscribe him — to deprive him of friends — to instill into hearts now kind 
and affectionate, that bitter and rancorous hatred, which corrodes and poisons his own 
existence. The Judge alludes here to conversations held in the confidence of his own 
fire-side, where the foibles and imperfections of that friend may have been frankly dis- 
cussed. Opinions expressed there, should have been kept sacred to the occasion. But 
in "ruthless war," nothing is sacred in his Honour's eye. 

It has been my fortune, like other men, in the journey of life, to have had two or three 
angry collisions. Like other men, in my anger, I have been unjust and intemperate. 
My anger passed off with the occasion which gave it birth, and in every instance har- 
mony and kindness were restored. But my indiscretions have been treasured up by 
Judge Scott, and are now renewed for his shocking purpose of cutting off my friends. 
I have seen the stealthy foot-prints of "the old boy" on the cold ashes, raking for em- 
bers, that he may reanimate my long forgotten dissentions, and raise up strong enemies 
against aie. Against such an enemy, it behooves me to be guarded at every avenue. I 
shall certainly insure my property against fire. 

Note 25. — Here is a pretty how de do ! as old Squeers would say, this is cow-rage 
ousneas for you ! I am at a dead fault fo get at his exact meaning- He says I must un 



68 

burden myself to him " in person," " face to face ! ! Tins is a direct challenge, either 
to a fist fight, or to a wordy quarrel. I flatly decline botl as. As to the fight ; 

if I was to whip him, I should gain no credit ; and i! he was lo whip me, (and hang him 
he might do it,) I should be evi ghed at. As to the quarrel, the cunning 

old fox knows his forte — it is an unequal proposition. Judge Seott has out-quarrelled all the 
old women around him, and is looked upon as " an expert." But perhaps he does not 
refer either tq a " wordy quarrel," or " a fist fight." His language would import some- 
thing in the gunpowder line. He says he waives office, or any thing which I may 
think stands in my way ! This is a dare devil spirit in the Judge. But he knows that I 
too hold office, which not even the honor of fighting with a Judge of the General Court 
of Virginia could induce me to surrender. The education and very bread of my children 
depend on it! A duel between two persons circumstanced as the Judge and myself are, 
might decide which of us was the better shot, but it would leave society very much di- 
vided on the question, which of the two was the biggest fool. 

The good people of Warrenton have requested, that I should somewhere in this book, 
vindicate the name of our village from the charge of contentiousness, under which our 
j-requent explosions have eminently brought us. They contend, that the prominent traits 
of our society, are hospitality, sociality, and kindness. No community in Virginia is 
more distinguished for these qualities ; and yet we have a character abroad, of being "ex- 
ceedingly contentious ;" " always in a stow." 

This popular delusion arises exclusively from the general ignorance of our geographi- 
cal position. Warrenton is a beautiful village, but unfortunately situated in the vicinity 
of modern Etxa, on whose summit Judge Scott resides, in the palace of combustion. It 
is the frequent and loud sounding reports, issuing from this crater of inexhaustible pas- 
sion, which has imparted a false reputation to a most worthy and peaceful community. 
Many of our quiet citizens have been scalded by his erupting lava, and their angry com- 
plaints have contributed to the bad name of which we now complain. Justice to our 
town, requires that I should publish a docket of his honor's quarrels. It will be seen from 
them, that he is to blame, exclusively, for the bad reputation we labor under. I verily be- 
peve that he has been in every dispute which has occurred for twenty years, except a 
short quarrel between Jack Tancil and a Methodist man, about a cow. The cow died 
suddenly, before his Honour could spit on his hands. 

A DOCKET OF JUDGE SCOTT'S QUARRELS. 

Scott vs. John Love Scott vs. Thos. O. Jennings 
Scott vs. Thos. M. Smith. — Smith sued him Scott vs. Nathaniel Tyler 

for slander. Scott vs. Mrs. Anne Brooke 

Scott vs. Berdit Scott vs. Martin P. Brooke 

Scott vs. Major Turner Scott vs. Charles F. Mercer 

Scott vs. T. L. Moore Scott vs. The Sulphur Springs 

Scott vs. Inman Horner Scott vs. A. J. Marshall 

Scott vs. Jno. S. Horner Scott vs. Bruin 

Scott vs. Major Wallace Scott vs. Prince William Jury 

Scott vs. Berkley Ward Scott vs. The Butchers of Fredericksburg 

Same vs. same, three years after. Scott vs. Bailey J'yler. 



69 

Not keeping a " Black Book," as the Judge does, I am unable to gives dates or causes 
of quarrel. I set them down from memory, and have, no doubt, done the Judge injus- 
tice, in omitting to enumerate a good many." 

Note. 26. — His "forbearance," andjiny "outrage!!" The Judge must have 
laughed when he penned this sentence, " My outrage," and " his forbearance" ! ! ! 



APPENDIX 



(A.) 

January 3d, 1842. 
" To Messrs. Isham Keith, Samuel Torbert, Thomas Nelson, and Martin P. Brooke. 
" Gentlemen: It becomes a matter of importance to me, to ascertain the exact 
" manner in which, and the circumstances under which, Mr. Brooke's name was 
" brought before the public last March, as a candidate for the county. His nomi- 
" nation has been attributed to me by the Hon. Judge Scott, and his son, and the 
" most debasing motives ascribed. I have denied all original knowledge or con- 
" nection with that nomination ; and for my protection against gross injustice, 
" respectfully ask of each of you, a statement of the manner and occasion of Mr 
" Brooke's nomination. 

" Respectfully, &c. 

" A. J. MARSHALL." 



(B.) 

"Dear Sir: In reply to your's of January the 2d, I cheerfully give my recol- 
" lections of the ''manner and circumstances'' under which my name came before 
" the public in March last as a candidate. 

" On the Friday before March Court, I was in my field, adjoining Mr. Keith's 
" land, when he hailed me. I rode to his house, and found Mr. Torbert there. 
" Torbert insisted that we should ride over and dine with him. We went, and in 
" a few minutes Thomas Nelson joined us at Torbert's house. The nomination 
" of a candidate on Monday was the subject of discussion. We were all perplexed 
" who to nominate. We all joined in the conversation, and the difficulty with us 
" was to name some efficient man who would consent to serve. All understood 
" that neither Scott or Edmonds would accept. After a good deal of talk, Mr. Tor- 
" bert remarked, that it would suit me to be a candidate; and Mr. Keith replied that I 
" was his choice, and he had often thought of bringing me forward. Mr. Nelson 
" concurred in the idea, and they all united in insisting on bringing my name for- 
*' ward. I received the proposition in a laughing way, and treated their proposition 



70 

M with levity, as I really had no desire for the place. We all parted, and took 
" different routes. 1 came to Warrenton and spent the day, (Saturday) in town. I 
" did not mention what had occurred to a single individual ; for, in truth, it made 
"no impression on me. On Sunday I went to Mr. Keith's house. He again 
" broached the subject, and told me that the more he had considered, the more fixed 
" he had become in his purpose of nominating me ; and wished to know distinctly 
" from me whether I would accept, if a nomination was tendered. He was so ear- 
" nest in his manner that I was compelled to give a serious reply. I replied, in 
" effect, that I would consent if the nomination was made, and was acceptable to 
" the mass of the Whigs. He then said, that in the morning he should goto War- 
" renton and start the proposition. 

" The next day, (Monday,) I reached town rather late. I met several gentle- 
" men, (Jones Green, Samuel Chilton, William Hudnal, Samuel Baily, and 
" many others who cordially congratulated me on myJ expected nomination. Mr. 
" Keith, or some others, had started the subject, and I acknowledge I was much 
" flattered by the general pleasure with which it seemed to be received. When I 
" had been in town a half hour, I met you, and you accosted me by telling me that 
" my nomination seemed to take like hot cakes. You then told me you were sorry 
w that you could not sustain it ; that you felt pledged to go for Walden. To which 
" I replied, that if Walden returned in time from the south, no man was more pledged 
" for him than myself. In the course of the day, some friends told me that Judge 
" Scott and Robert E. Lee were the only persons they heard oppose the nomination, 
" and mentioned their violent and opprobrious conduct. I then felt indignant, and 
" announced my determination to accept the nomination of the meeting. A small 
" meeting was held on Monday, and adjourned till Thursday. I went home and 
" remained till Wednesday; when I got to town, I found the Judge at his post, ac- 
" tively and openly canvassing against me. I remained in town till after the meet- 
u ing on Thursday, but took no part in the canvass. The meeting was broken 
" up in consequence of Judge Scott's violence, without making any nomination. 
" My friends then organized, and tendered the nomination to R. E. Scott, which he 
" accepted. I was among the first to approve and pledge to support it, which I 
" faithfully redeemed. And this, to the best of my memory, is a faithful narrative 
" of the manner and circumstances under which my name was brought before the 
" public as a candidate in March last. 

"M.P.BROOKE." 

(C.) 
" A. J. Marshall, Esq. 

M Sir : In a letter addressed to S. Toibert, Thos. Nelson, M. P. Brooke, and my- 
" self, you request me to say whether we have any knowledge of the manner in 
" which Mr. M. Brooke was brought before the public last March. 

" I have a perfect recollection that, a few days before March Court, Mr. Brooke, 



71 

" Mr. Nelson, and myself, accidentally met at Mr. Torbert's, when a successor to 
" Mr. R. E. Scott was spoken of. After speaking of many gentlemen, all of whom 
" it was said would refuse the nomination, Mr. Torbert proposed to Mr. Brooke 
'' that he should be the candidate, and I cordially concurred ; to which Mr. Brooke 
" replied that he had no wish to represent the county, or some such expression. 
J- Nothing more was said about it. On Sunday, preceding March Court, Mr. 
" Brooke dined with me — I then told him that I had thought seriously about his 
" nomination the next day, and that if it met with his approbation I should advo 
" cate it — to which he consented. Shortly after reaching Warrenton, on Monday, 
i* I saw you, and requested that you should bring his name before a meeting which 
t* we intended to hold that evening — you replied that you were pledged to another 
i> gentleman. This was the first that I heard of Mr. Brooke's being a candidate 
" and, I believe, was the beginning of it. I know you had no agency in the matter. 

" Very respectfully, 

« ISHAM KEITH." 



(D.) 
" Jl. J. Marshall, Esq. 

" In reply to your letter of the 2nd January, we have simply to state, that the 

" meeting did take place at the house of Samuel Torbert, as stated by Mr. Keith. 

" The nomination of a candidate for the Legislature was the subject of conversa- 

" tion — whether Samuel Torbert or Isham Keith made the suggestion, we do not 

(' remember ; but we well remember that when Martin P. Brooke, who was present) 

if- was applied to, we all joined in the suggestion. It was made in a jocular way 

" and urged upon Mr. Brooke in a jocular way — none of us were more amused, or 

" treated the proposition more as a joke, than Mr Brooke himself ; he said that it did 

" not suit him, and laughed heartily with us, and at our jokes. We all intended to 

" support Robert E. Scott, if he would serve — but if he declined, and Martin P. 

tt Brooke had been regularly nominated, we would have supported him with plea- 

w sure. In regard to your original agency, we know nothing. 

" SAMUEL TORBERT, 

" THOS. H. NELSON.'* 



ERRATA 

On page 6, read " nor did," foi " or did," &.c. 
On page 7, read " that his unguarded advance." 

On page 8, " hypocrisy," spelled u hypocracy," and "rung," instead of u rang.'- 
On last line of chapter II, page 10, for recked, read " wrecked ;" and for " ves~ 
tage," read " vestige." 

On page 11, for " magistatis," read "majestatis." 

On page 17, read " contraband of war," in place of "of contraband war." 

On page 37, read " counsel" for " council." 

On page 38, for " improving," read " approving conscience." 

On page 47, read " tract" for " track.' 1 '' 

On page 63, [ note] read " impudent," for " imputant." 

In the words "chose" and " chosing," correct, "choose" and "choosing.,' 

There are some other errors necessarily incident to the haste in which the print- 
ing has been done. 



